Replacing the Subs

[Czech_pivo]

Carney quoted today talking about subs. Basically stated that we won't be getting a decision on them until 27'/ 28' timeframe. Seems to me the project will be going to competition after all.

And it means that speed is not as important for the submarines project as maybe we thought (or was that hoped?)

Is there any reference to this conversation/statement that Carney made? I've been trying to find it online with no luck. Was it something he said off the cuff in a media scrum?

 

[Rainbow1910]

There is going to be some natural friction between Re-arm Europe and Re-arm Canada.
I have picked a favourite submarine but talking to the submariners they would love to get a German sub as well.

One of my issues with the Germans is compared to the Koreans, they don’t seem to be putting in anywhere near the same amount of serious effort regarding the CPSP. They are treating this as yet another largely transactional relationship where they sell equipment to a customer and walk off into the sunset, while we have the Koreans rolling out the proverbial red carpet and setting the ground work for a substantial nation to nation defence relationship going forward.

It feels to me like we were not being treated seriously by the Germans even with the insane size and cost of our order, instead being relegated to the same level of partnership as say Norway or some other random schmuck in off the street looking for a submarine. Their somewhat dismissive and “trust me bro” attitude about being able to meet our timelines requiring us to sign on soon so they can use our money to properly finance another entire shipyard, rubs me the wrong way. I get the distinct feeling that the Germans think they “deserve” this contract and don’t need to work for it.

The Type 212CD is a world class platform from a NATO partner however, the discussion with the Germans thus far has not endeared the rest of their bid to me in the slightest when comparing it to the slam dunk that the Koreans have lined up.

There was an interesting article some months ago explaining some of the advantages of the new Spanish sub over the German subs…..my memory is a bit foggy but alot of them seemed to be about better power generation and crew environmental redundancy as well as longer cruise ability. I’ll have to try and find it. It did make me think that the Spanish sub might be a better fit for Canada than the German sub depending on how its first few years of operation went. I still lean towards the Korean one personally.

The S-80+ has largely been an export failure, with it being pushed out or aside from multiple other submarine programs thus far. Navantia is questionably competent, many capabilities/the submarines themselves have been long overdue and the entire program to one degree or wither is a disaster. Given the total lack of submarines built prior to this and the laundry list of issues present now, I really find it hard to believe that the Spanish have something that can even compete on par with the Germans, who are the world class conventional submarine producers in the west.

 

[Halifax Tar]

One of my issues with the Germans is compared to the Koreans, they don’t seem to be putting in anywhere near the same amount of serious effort regarding the CPSP. They are treating this as yet another largely transactional relationship where they sell equipment to a customer and walk off into the sunset, while we have the Koreans rolling out the proverbial red carpet and setting the ground work for a substantial nation to nation defence relationship going forward.

It feels to me like we were not being treated seriously by the Germans even with the insane size and cost of our order, instead being relegated to the same level of partnership as say Norway or some other random schmuck in off the street looking for a submarine. Their somewhat dismissive and “trust me bro” attitude about being able to meet our timelines requiring us to sign on soon so they can use our money to properly finance another entire shipyard, rubs me the wrong way. I get the distinct feeling that the Germans think they “deserve” this contract and don’t need to work for it.

The Type 212CD is a world class platform from a NATO partner however, the discussion with the Germans thus far has not endeared the rest of their bid to me in the slightest when comparing it to the slam dunk that the Koreans have lined up.


The S-80+ has largely been an export failure, with it being pushed out or aside from multiple other submarine programs thus far. Navantia is questionably competent, many capabilities/the submarines themselves have been long overdue and the entire program to one degree or wither is a disaster. Given the total lack of submarines built prior to this and the laundry list of issues present now, I really find it hard to believe that the Spanish have something that can even compete on par with the Germans, who are the world class conventional submarine producers in the west.

Agreed on all points. I think SK is the way to go.

 

[Underway]

One of my issues with the Germans is compared to the Koreans, they don’t seem to be putting in anywhere near the same amount of serious effort regarding the CPSP. They are treating this as yet another largely transactional relationship where they sell equipment to a customer and walk off into the sunset, while we have the Koreans rolling out the proverbial red carpet and setting the ground work for a substantial nation to nation defence relationship going forward.

It feels to me like we were not being treated seriously by the Germans even with the insane size and cost of our order, instead being relegated to the same level of partnership as say Norway or some other random schmuck in off the street looking for a submarine. Their somewhat dismissive and “trust me bro” attitude about being able to meet our timelines requiring us to sign on soon so they can use our money to properly finance another entire shipyard, rubs me the wrong way. I get the distinct feeling that the Germans think they “deserve” this contract and don’t need to work for it.

The Type 212CD is a world class platform from a NATO partner however, the discussion with the Germans thus far has not endeared the rest of their bid to me in the slightest when comparing it to the slam dunk that the Koreans have lined up.

I feel the same but I have one caveat. RoK are pushing their submarine hard and investing a lot of time and effort, when the RFP hasn't even been drafted yet. Germans being german are going to wait until the competition starts and then put together their proper proposal. And let that stand on its own merits.

Why waste all this time and money selling your submarine to the public when you need to put the time, money and effort meeting the RFP and selling your program to the selection team. Particularly as Germany has seen other Canadian competitions waste peoples time and money (Close Combat Vehicle is a prime example).

Germany does have a number of advantages that RoK does not have. Naval cooperation and tech sharing agreement. Germany buys Canadian military equipment already (in particular a big purchase of CMS 330 is in the future). Part of NATO and the NATO SSK submarine training program (similar to the pilot training program). And now the Re-arm Europe (and other Europhile deals that Canada may create).

The S-80+ has largely been an export failure, with it being pushed out or aside from multiple other submarine programs thus far. Navantia is questionably competent, many capabilities/the submarines themselves have been long overdue and the entire program to one degree or wither is a disaster. Given the total lack of submarines built prior to this and the laundry list of issues present now, I really find it hard to believe that the Spanish have something that can even compete on par with the Germans, who are the world class conventional submarine producers in the west.

100%. I don't even think they are a dark horse option. They probably won't end up bidding once the RFP is out.

 

[Genetk44]

I still think you’d all be better off in a SSN simply due to the coastline and oceans you have.

I doubt the US would ever agree to that.

 

[k.numbers]

I still think you’d all be better off in a SSN simply due to the coastline and oceans you have.

I agree that the capabilities of an SSN would be an advantage, but I think the reasons for going SSK are sensible.

1) Time: we can have an SSK delivered before the Vics retire, we be waiting a decade+ longer for an SSN

2) Nuclear industry: Canada has a decent amount of nuclear power, but our CANDU reactors are large and can not be adapted for use in a submarine. They also use non-enriched U fuel; so we do not have the enrichment capabilities to keep SSNs fueled. We'd either be wholely dependant of a foreign partner for the reactors, or add billions in costs trying to set up that industry domestically.

3) Base infrastructure: Halifax or Esquimalt would need substantial expansions to fit the SSNs; both bases are in urban centres with limited room to grow. Either that or new, SSN focused, bases would have to be built from scratch in new locations.

4) Personel: Crew sizes on the SSNs would be ~3x that of an SSK and the off-boat support required is substantially larger. We're going to have trouble crewing the RCDs and SSKs as it is.

5) Cost: The per boat cost is much higher, but that's just the start. With the additional personel, nuclear industry investments, and base infrastructure requirements mentioned above, the total support cost would be astronomical. We would end up ordering fewer subs and/or not invest in other capabilities to make up that cost difference. And with fewer subs you lose the economies of scale on the nuclear industry investments.

If we invest in enriched fuel, pressurized water reactors today (like we are with some SMR projects), the equation might be different by the time we nees to replace the CPSP. But for today, an SSN is not in the cards

 

[KevinB]

I doubt the US would ever agree to that.

Every NATO SSN out there is one less we need to put in the water.
Despite all the noise about AUKUS it’s economically attractive for us, even selling the VA boats at a loss to the Aussies.

first delivery 2050 after England, Australia, and U.S. as opposed to an 85% solution delivered in just a couple of years with complete delivery by 2035

The AUKUS boats are going to be made in England, there is zero plan on changing from the VA class to the AUKUS class here.
I’ve been over the math here before but a late 2035 boat wouldn’t be impossible for Canada, and quite frankly the infrastructure requirements on both cost from a security and safety perspective would be a 2040 type thing anyway.
So you could probably follow the Aussie model with dual crewing on the VA’s in the very short order and then solo operations on VA’s until the AUKUS boats come on line.

The yards are actually capable of more production, major issue is long lead items that the USN hasn’t been approving. Given the needs, the yards are going to have to spool up to retire the Improved LA class boats and raise the desired boat numbers, however at a point that raise would have an extra boat available almost every 12 months.

 

[PrairieFella]

Every NATO SSN out there is one less we need to put in the water.
Despite all the noise about AUKUS it’s economically attractive for us, even selling the VA boats at a loss to the Aussies.

The AUKUS boats are going to be made in England, there is zero plan on changing from the VA class to the AUKUS class here.
I’ve been over the math here before but a late 2035 boat wouldn’t be impossible for Canada, and quite frankly the infrastructure requirements on both cost from a security and safety perspective would be a 2040 type thing anyway.
So you could probably follow the Aussie model with dual crewing on the VA’s in the very short order and then solo operations on VA’s until the AUKUS boats come on line.

The yards are actually capable of more production, major issue is long lead items that the USN hasn’t been approving. Given the needs, the yards are going to have to spool up to retire the Improved LA class boats and raise the desired boat numbers, however at a point that raise would have an extra boat available almost every 12 months.

The flak the Aussies are catching right now probably isn't a situation we want to replicate, especially since it would be almost guaranteed these would be used as blackmail to get concessions, just like what'shappening to Aus. The Koreans and Northern Euros are reliable partners and known quantities. Unfortunately the Americans aren't right now.

 

[Kirkhill]

Carney quoted today talking about subs. Basically stated that we won't be getting a decision on them until 27'/ 28' timeframe. Seems to me the project will be going to competition after all.

And it means that speed is not as important for the submarines project as maybe we thought (or was that hoped?)

Carney has until 2035 to up our game.

Both Carney and Trump will be gone by them.
Trade negotiations are settling down to the usual dull roar.
Ukraine is being "managed".
Russia is hurt.
Iran is hurt.

China watches.

The markets and politics continue.

....

The time pressure is easing, if it isn't off.
Our window of opportunity is closing.
Military spending will be diverted to infrastructure where possible.

 

[KevinB]

I agree that the capabilities of an SSN would be an advantage, but I think the reasons for going SSK are sensible.

1) Time: we can have an SSK delivered before the Vics retire, we be waiting a decade+ longer for an SSN

2) Nuclear industry: Canada has a decent amount of nuclear power, but our CANDU reactors are large and can not be adapted for use in a submarine. They also use non-enriched U fuel; so we do not have the enrichment capabilities to keep SSNs fueled. We'd either be wholely dependant of a foreign partner for the reactors, or add billions in costs trying to set up that industry domestically.

3) Base infrastructure: Halifax or Esquimalt would need substantial expansions to fit the SSNs; both bases are in urban centres with limited room to grow. Either that or new, SSN focused, bases would have to be built from scratch in new locations.

4) Personel: Crew sizes on the SSNs would be ~3x that of an SSK and the off-boat support required is substantially larger. We're going to have trouble crewing the RCDs and SSKs as it is.

5) Cost: The per boat cost is much higher, but that's just the start. With the additional personel, nuclear industry investments, and base infrastructure requirements mentioned above, the total support cost would be astronomical. We would end up ordering fewer subs and/or not invest in other capabilities to make up that cost difference. And with fewer subs you lose the economies of scale on the nuclear industry investments.

If we invest in enriched fuel, pressurized water reactors today (like we are with some SMR projects), the equation might be different by the time we nees to replace the CPSP. But for today, an SSN is not in the cards

US reactors are life of the boat these days, although some reactors have been a cut and replace. They aren’t refueled.

I don’t disagree that the SSK option is the easier option at this point for Canada, but in the long run I don’t think it’s the best.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I agree that the capabilities of an SSN would be an advantage, but I think the reasons for going SSK are sensible.

1) Time: we can have an SSK delivered before the Vics retire, we be waiting a decade+ longer for an SSN

2) Nuclear industry: Canada has a decent amount of nuclear power, but our CANDU reactors are large and can not be adapted for use in a submarine. They also use non-enriched U fuel; so we do not have the enrichment capabilities to keep SSNs fueled. We'd either be wholely dependant of a foreign partner for the reactors, or add billions in costs trying to set up that industry domestically.

3) Base infrastructure: Halifax or Esquimalt would need substantial expansions to fit the SSNs; both bases are in urban centres with limited room to grow. Either that or new, SSN focused, bases would have to be built from scratch in new locations.

4) Personel: Crew sizes on the SSNs would be ~3x that of an SSK and the off-boat support required is substantially larger. We're going to have trouble crewing the RCDs and SSKs as it is.

5) Cost: The per boat cost is much higher, but that's just the start. With the additional personel, nuclear industry investments, and base infrastructure requirements mentioned above, the total support cost would be astronomical. We would end up ordering fewer subs and/or not invest in other capabilities to make up that cost difference. And with fewer subs you lose the economies of scale on the nuclear industry investments.

If we invest in enriched fuel, pressurized water reactors today (like we are with some SMR projects), the equation might be different by the time we nees to replace the CPSP. But for today, an SSN is not in the cards

French run their Suffren Class with 60 crew, 1 more than our Victoria Class and are 20m longer with almost double the tonnage

Suffren-class submarine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For refueling:

French nuclear submarines, unlike their US and UK counterparts, require refueling during their operational life due to the use of low-enriched uranium (LEU). This refueling process, which typically occurs every 7-10 years, involves replacing the reactor's fuel core and can take several months. While this is a more frequent requirement, France has established the infrastructure to handle this process efficiently at its naval base in Toulon

 

[Genetk44]

Unfortunately the only way we get SSNs if the US agrees to waive existing treaties that give the US a veto over Canada getting the required nuclear technology for subs. Reagan was sort of willing but at the end of the day Canada having SSNs is viewed negativly vis-a-vis the arctic and NW passage by the US. And Trump is highly unlikely to look favourably on Canada having that capability…so it definately isn’t even an option for the next 4 years.

 

[MilEME09]

If you order 10, you get free baguettes and wine for a year.

but does the boat have a wine chiller in the ward room for the officers?

 

[Nvlgzr]

Unfortunately the only way we get SSNs if the US agrees to waive existing treaties that give the US a veto over Canada getting the required nuclear technology for subs. Reagan was sort of willing but at the end of the day Canada having SSNs is viewed negativly vis-a-vis the arctic and NW passage by the US. And Trump is highly unlikely to look favourably on Canada having that capability…so it definately isn’t even an option for the next 4 years.

That is for British Nucs, since they have reactors based on American reactors. The French developed theirs independently. In the 90s when the French were offering Rubis class and the British were offering Trafalgars the USN were blocking the deal. But Reagan overruled USN.

 

[Nvlgzr]

Furthermore. My understanding is that Australia tried to get Nuclear Suffrens but were turned down. Don’t know if it was French policy not to share their nuclear tech. Maybe someone else on this forum has more insight into this.

 

[KevinB]

Furthermore. My understanding is that Australia tried to get Nuclear Suffrens but were turned down. Don’t know if it was French policy not to share their nuclear tech. Maybe someone else on this forum has more insight into this.

No the Aussies where not trying to get Nuc’s until AUKUS. The whole ShortFin Barracuda was the French answer to a SSK instead of a SSN for that program.

 

[Genetk44]

That is for British Nucs, since they have reactors based on American reactors. The French developed theirs independently. In the 90s when the French were offering Rubis class and the British were offering Trafalgars the USN were blocking the deal. But Reagan overruled USN.

No, there is another treaty that impacts the French nukes too. Plus a treaty directly between Canada and the US that denies us nukes.

 

[quadrapiper]

No, there is another treaty that impacts the French nukes too. Plus a treaty directly between Canada and the US that denies us nukes.

Reference?

 

[KevinB]

Reference?

What Google AI says.
Canada and the United States have several agreements concerning nuclear weapons, primarily focused on cooperation and non-proliferation. While Canada does not possess its own nuclear weapons, it has a history of cooperation with the US on nuclear matters, including accepting nuclear weapons on Canadian soil temporarily. Canada is a non-nuclear weapon state party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has signed agreements with the US for cooperation on civil uses of atomic energy and for cooperation on mutual defense purposes.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:
1. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT):Canada ratified the NPT in 1970, committing to not acquire nuclear weapons.

2. Cooperation on Civil Uses of Atomic Energy: The 1955 agreement between Canada and the US on the civil uses of atomic energy outlines provisions for transferring nuclear technology, material, and equipment, with restrictions on transfers to unauthorized persons or beyond territorial jurisdiction.

3. Cooperation on Mutual Defense Purposes: Another 1955 agreement focuses on the exchange of information and materials related to atomic energy for mutual defense. This includes developing defense plans and training personnel.

4. Defense Production Sharing Agreement (DPSA): Formalized in 1959, this agreement aims to integrate defense production between the two countries, removing barriers to reciprocal procurement.

5. NORAD Agreement: The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) agreement, updated in 2006, involves cooperation in aerospace warning, air sovereignty, and maritime warning for North America.

6. Canada's Stance on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)espite being a non-nuclear weapon state and a key player in global non-proliferation efforts, Canada has not signed the TPNW, which prohibits the development, testing, production, acquisition, possession, or use of nuclear weapons. Canada's position is that a step-by-step approach to nuclear disarmament remains the most viable pathway

 

[Colin Parkinson]

My guess is that if got the French nuclear attack subs and did our refueling in France, the US would have little say over it as we are not handling or being custodians of the nuclear material outside of the reactor. We would have to pay into the storage and handling by the French of the material.