TKMS Type 212CD (Victoria class replacement megathread)

[oldcpu]

You might want to direct your repeated instruction to “go read official government documents” toward yourself.

The Canadian Coast Guard defines an ice keel as the submerged portion of a pressure ridge and states that ridged ice is “usually found in first year ice.” The Canadian Ice Service says pressure ridges occur mostly in newer ice and may extend four to five times farther below the surface than above it. The National Research Council even published a 154 page report titled An Overview of First Year Sea Ice Ridges.

Please read

Ok. i did just that (for the 2000 report). I did not yet find a PDF for the subsequent 2012 compilation, but I read a bit about that.

Regarding the ice-keel figures being cited: the National Research Council Canada’s 154-page report, An Overview of First-Year Sea Ice Ridges (2000), and the subsequent 2012 compilation draw substantially on historical observations dating back to 1971. The later compilation incorporates some newer material, but the most recent observations cited in that work include March observations, not September. It is not a September 2026 Canadian Arctic Archipelago dataset, nor, for that matter, a prediction of the expected readings for 2033/2034.

Since 1971, the Arctic has experienced substantial warming, with a shift toward thinner and more seasonal sea ice, and that trend has continued from 2012 through 2026. I think it is fair to say that historical extreme keel measurements dating back to 1971, with March 2012 updates (i.e. over a decade ago), should not automatically be treated as representative of September first-year ice conditions in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, particularly when considering conditions expected in 2033/2034.

 

[oldcpu]

 

[Stoker]

Question -

Does that shorter route that Norway has to travel not mean that their options to travel to that area is vastly smaller and as a result, more predictable, thus increasing their risk/exposure to being discovered/sunk?

Given the choices of 'shorter and less ice' (Norway) vs 'longer and more ice' (Canada), which would you rather have to cover as your area of patrol?

It would make sense that it is more predictable, particularly around fjords, narrow approaches and known operating areas. Sacrificing predictability is a trade off reaching the patrol areas quickly which means they spend less time in transit, exploit complex coastal waters and receive support from nearby bases, aircraft, sensors and NATO Those same fjords and seabed features also provide excellent opportunities for concealment and ambush.


Canada on the other hand has vastly more ocean and more possible routes, which makes the enemy search way more complex. That advantage cuts both ways. Our submarines must travel much farther, remain deployed longer and cover an enormous patrol area with limited supporting infrastructure. Ice, shallow or poorly surveyed channels, communications constraints and limited ports further restrict where a conventional submarine can safely operate. The patrol box may be huge, but the practical operating transit areas would become predictable.


If I was given the choice, I would generally take Norway’s shorter route and lighter ice conditions. Transit time is not patrol time. A submarine that reaches its operating area quickly, with more endurance remaining and support close behind it, is usually in a better operational position than one spending days or weeks merely getting there. That's why a nuclear submarine can do high speed transits to get to a patrol box early with tons more endurance. Canada’s geography offers a larger search area for an enemy, but it imposes a much heavier resource drain on the submarine and its supporting system.

 

[oldcpu]

Of interest to the Canadian Submarine project, is on 6 March 2026, the Canadian National Defence issued a further Request for Information (RFI) : Notice of Proposed Procurement (NPP) - Request for Information (RFI) for the Sustainment of the Canadian Patrol Submarine. Noah has a description on his TrueNorth strategic review site: Defence Investment Agency seeks input from Canadian industry on future submarine fleet sustainment

I don't know the content of the RFI - but it would not surprise me if it addresses some AIP reactant replenishment aspects. My not having found nor read it though, I could be wrong on this. If anyone knows of a link as to where the RFI actual content was posted (to share), it might be an interesting read.

Further to this, I note : Defence Investment Agency seeks input from Canadian industry on future submarine fleet sustainment - Canada.ca

Sustainment activities for the Canadian Patrol Submarine fleet will be conducted in Canada, in or near homeports, supported by a national supply chain.

If I speculate on that (speculation being the 'operative' word), that suggests to mean this pretty much refers to Halifax/Shearwater area and Esquimalt area only. ... But I am speculating.

 

[childs56]

Lucky for the military therr are companies who produce, transport, store lox and hydrogen. They can deliver 24hrs a day seven days a week.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

When someone fabricates words you did not say, and uses that as the basis of their debate (which is what Stoker does)? ... Well .. .we have different views there.

Is there an actual goal that you are trying achieve here? You argue minutae; you parse every word of every reply and you have posted pages of material arguing what constitutes “sustained”.

This thread is in the ditch.

 

[Stoker]

Lucky for the military therr are companies who produce, transport, store lox and hydrogen. They can deliver 24hrs a day seven days a week.

Absolutely. Portugal has even used tanker trucks to replenish its submarines in foreign ports via roads. The production, transportation and storage of these reactants are established commercial capabilities. The real question is not whether they can be delivered, but what additional infrastructure, safety arrangements and regulatory approvals would be required at remote Arctic locations if Canada indicated that it is something they may want to eventually pursue.

 

[childs56]

Absolutely. Portugal has even used tanker trucks to replenish its submarines in foreign ports via roads. The production, transportation and storage of these reactants are established commercial capabilities. The real question is not whether they can be delivered, but what additional infrastructure, safety arrangements and regulatory approvals would be required at remote Arctic locations if Canada indicated that it is something they may want to eventually pursue.

They have set ups for air land and sea transport. Can do so safely. As for replenishment of a sub. I see little difference other then needing to pump nitrogen to cool the replenishment of the nitrogen storage. Again these things are all do able currently in Canada. Just has not been done for a Canadian Military sub Using Canadian MIlitary process.

 

[oldcpu]

I found this 10-Feb-2026 Globe and Mail article of interest;

Globe and Mail: New submarines will require extra gear after delivery to operate under ice, navy head says

I think others on this forum will also find that article of interest if not already read.

For example Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee is noted as stating:

"The new submarines Canada plans to buy will not arrive with all the necessary equipment to operate under Arctic ice, meaning they will require modifications after delivery, the head of the navy says.

Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee said Canada will need to add under-ice gear to the boats after they arrive, such as upward-facing sonar that can detect and map overhead ice and areas of open water.
....
Vice-Adm. Topshee called the needed under-ice operation modifications “relatively simple” to accomplish, but said Canada will proceed carefully on developing its capability in the Arctic environment.

“That’s what we’re going to be targeting: to be able to come up to the surface in basically a crack of open water if we want to,” the commander said. “Part of ability to operate under there is to be able to return safely to the surface when it’s possible.”

Vice-Adm Topshee also stated the 'choke point' approach some of this forum advocated:

"Vice-Adm. Topshee said the majority of the effort by the new submarine fleet will be monitoring the chokepoints in the Bering Strait, the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the transit between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, as well as the Juan de Fuca Strait between British Columbia and Washington State, the entrance to the Puget Sound and the approaches to northern Vancouver Island, Prince Rupert, B.C., and Kitimat, B.C.

some more from that article ..

He said after taking delivery of the submarines, Canada will “start to work toward going under-ice, up into the Arctic, and then developing an actual under-ice capability.
...
The commander said Canada will also have to verify whether any other modifications are necessary because of the frigid temperatures of Arctic waters.”

I like that Globe and Mail article. Its a good read - in that in places it asks the good questions, where in cases, the answers are still to be formulated - so they are good questions to ask.

I compared some of what was in that article to the CPSP RFI "HLMR #15 – Upgradeability and Growth Potential" ... where I extracted some sentences from that long RFI (and its "Explanation") :

" Ability to upgrade submarine capability to maintain an operational advantage for the CPS service life. .... What are the structural or equipment changes needed for this operating environment (i.e. upward looking sonar, ice deflectors for masts, hull valve covering, HVAC, etc.)? Identify any specific materials or systems required to operate in extreme cold temperatures that would result in design changes. "

So the RFI was requesting the bidders identify structural and equipment changes, but not definitively need to include such. I wonder if and how the RFP will proceed in that and other aspects?

 

[Maxman1]

Is there an actual goal that you are trying achieve here? You argue minutae; you parse every word of every reply and you have posted pages of material arguing what constitutes “sustained”.

This thread is in the ditch.

It feels like a Gish gallop.

 

[oldcpu]

Lets change the focus on the thread. Any views or speculation as to what the TKMS proposal for the Type-212CD sonar may be?

The wiki on the type-212CD lists (but I do not know if accurate):

• Mine avoidance and navigation: Kongsberg SA9510S MkII
• Sea bed navigation: EM2040 Mil and EA640 echosounders

but it does not speculate as to Bow/hull-mounted sonar, Flank Sonar, nor Towed array sonar. What is everyone's guess here? For discussion, here is some speculation (where "speculation" is the operative word):

Bow/hull-mounted sonar

Speculation: Possibly an Atlas Elektronik CSU-family sonar (selecting a possible successor to the Type 212A's bow/hull mounted sonar) — My understanding is that Atlas Elektronik is TKMS's sonar/combat-electronics subsidiary and one of the partners in kta naval systems, a joint venture that i believe is responsible for the Type 212CD's ORCCA combat system. My understanding is that it is a company with a long submarine-sonar lineage.

Flank array sonar

Speculation: Atlas Elektronik large-aperture flank array (successor to 212A's FAS 3-1)

Towed array sonar

Speculation: Atlas Elektronik ACTAS (Active Towed Array Sonar) plus a TBD passive TAS variant in the lineage of the 212A's TAS 83/DTA 50 ??? (I am very much puzzling here )

===

Note - I am just speculating out of curiousity (speculating on Atlas Elektronik) for those noted sonars- not trying any more than that. Pure speculation. Any other guesses?

 

[oldcpu]

On the topic of possible sensors for the TKMS Type-212CD submarine, I read that the ESM planned for the TKMS Type-212CD submarine is likely to be from Indra Group but I have not as of yet read of any designation (such as Pegasus).

https://www.defenseadvancement.com/news/next-generation-electronic-warfare-systems-for-type-212cd-submarines/

That July-2022 article states " The company will equip four submarines of the Norwegian Navy and two of the German Navy with an electronic warfare intelligent system based in the wideband interception and analysis of the signals, the use of interferometry to determine the position of potential threats and the digital reception technology for the generation of radar and communications intelligence."

Further, marketing words state: "Artificial intelligence and machine learning techniques incorporate the capacity to adapt to future threats. "

So I asked myself, what is the possible scope of the AI / machine learning? My speculating (where speculation, again, is the "operative" word) I am wondering if could mean something like:
(a) the ESM equipment detects a signal emission and measures the signal parameters, digitizing them
(b) the ESM equipment's AI algorithm(s) attempt to categorize the signal based on the signal parameters in its classified database. If identified (and if the signal detected is in the Indra system's classified database) it possibly provides back to the operator, in readable text form, the signal aspects for the operator, stating the signal's function, and lists the classes of ships (or other platforms) associated with that signal
(c) the ESM equipment, if more than one possible ID noted, perhaps lists the possible IDs in order of probability, and lists the possible platforms associated
(d) If the detected signal is not in the database, the AI algorithm possibly assesses the function of the signal, such as navigation radar, surface search radar, air search radar, and possibly an aircraft radar ( i.e. one speculative concept is if the ESM maintains a time history of an emitter's bearing, the AI software could potentially use bearing rate and other observed signal characteristics as inputs to classify the emitter's generic platform, such as being from an aircraft).

Note, that is 100% my speculation.

Speculation.

I do not know if that actually the case.

 

[oldcpu]

Lets change the focus on the thread. Any views or speculation as to what the TKMS proposal for the Type-212CD sonar may be?

The wiki on the type-212CD lists (but I do not know if accurate):

• Mine avoidance and navigation: Kongsberg SA9510S MkII
• Sea bed navigation: EM2040 Mil and EA640 echosounders

I suspect the above may be too detailed to be of interest to most on this thread (especially without further information). Out of curiousity I dug a bit deeper, and this is what I learned in case any other than myself find such of interest:

An advantage of the Kongsberg SA9510S MkII Mine Avoidance and Navigation Sonar is that it has been selected for the Type 212CD and is integrated with the ORCCA combat system for navigation. Beyond mine avoidance, the SA9510S MkII provides detailed information on the seabed and obstacles ahead of the submarine, which can be particularly valuable for navigation in poorly charted or unfamiliar waters, including Arctic waters.

The Kongsberg EM2040 Mil (Seabed Navigation Multibeam) sonar delivers bathymetric swath mapping of the seafloor (and records the bathymetric data). This is useful for creating detailed contour maps and 3D terrain models of the seafloor. It is considered a high-performance, high-resolution multibeam echosounder widely used for detailed bathymetric surveying.

The Kongsberg EA640, in contrast, is a single-beam echo sounder that provides traditional depth measurement and seabed information. Its capabilities are broadly comparable to those of other high-quality modern echo sounders. The EA640 forms part of the Type 212CD bottom navigation system, together with the EM2040 MIL, and these sensors provide data to the ORCCA combat system for navigation.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Lets change the focus on the thread. Any views or speculation as to what the TKMS proposal for the Type-212CD sonar may be?

The wiki on the type-212CD lists (but I do not know if accurate):

• Mine avoidance and navigation: Kongsberg SA9510S MkII
• Sea bed navigation: EM2040 Mil and EA640 echosounders

but it does not speculate as to Bow/hull-mounted sonar, Flank Sonar, nor Towed array sonar. What is everyone's guess here? For discussion, here is some speculation (where "speculation" is the operative word):

Bow/hull-mounted sonar

Speculation: Possibly an Atlas Elektronik CSU-family sonar (selecting a possible successor to the Type 212A's bow/hull mounted sonar) — My understanding is that Atlas Elektronik is TKMS's sonar/combat-electronics subsidiary and one of the partners in kta naval systems, a joint venture that i believe is responsible for the Type 212CD's ORCCA combat system. My understanding is that it is a company with a long submarine-sonar lineage.

Flank array sonar

Speculation: Atlas Elektronik large-aperture flank array (successor to 212A's FAS 3-1)

Towed array sonar

Speculation: Atlas Elektronik ACTAS (Active Towed Array Sonar) plus a TBD passive TAS variant in the lineage of the 212A's TAS 83/DTA 50 ??? (I am very much puzzling here )

===

Note - I am just speculating out of curiousity (speculating on Atlas Elektronik) for those noted sonars- not trying any more than that. Pure speculation. Any other guesses?

No one should be providing an answer to this on an open forum.

Id like to read your MPRR. My Spidey senses are tingling.

 

[oldcpu]

No one should be providing an answer to this on an open forum.

Id like to read your MPRR. My Spidey senses are tingling.

lol !

Information on such sonars is in the public domain. One simply needs to go to the different manufacturers sites, read up on their equipment, maybe check a wiki or two ...

Obviously it helps a LOT if one has a naval background. It helps if one also studied such in their own time when in the navy. It helps if one knows the companies involved. It helps if one out of curiousity has been monitoring such (perhaps on and off) for decades even after leaving the navy. But as has been eloquently pointed out on this thread, I'm an old guy - any secrets I once knew (in naval aspects - perhaps not in some other areas) have likely all long since passed their statue of limitations. Still I don't take chances. I obtain information from public sources. I recommend others do the same also.

Anyone who releases secrets does so at their own peril, and I for one would not do so - which is, again, why I rely on the public domain. I would honestly expect others to stay within what is public knowledge as well.

If one checks out threads on all different classes of surface warships, and on submarines too, its not uncommon to read many posts, debating what weapons, what sensors will be installed. Why should this thread be any different?

We have great moderators on this forum. If they think anything is 'classified', I trust their judgement to delete and chastise and/or ban the poster. That includes me.

 

[Halifax Tar]

lol !

Information on such sonars is in the public domain. One simply needs to go to the different manufacturers sites, read up on their equipment, maybe check a wiki or two ...

Obviously it helps a LOT if one has a naval background. It helps if one also studied such in their own time when in the navy. It helps if one knows the companies involved. It helps if one out of curiousity has been monitoring such (perhaps on and off) for decades even after leaving the navy. But as has been eloquently pointed out on this thread, I'm an old guy - any secrets I once knew (in naval aspects - perhaps not in some other areas) have likely all long since passed their statue of limitations. Still I don't take chances. I obtain information from public sources. I recommend others do the same also.

Anyone who releases secrets does so at their own peril, and I for one would not do so - which is, again, why I rely on the public domain. I would honestly expect others to stay within what is public knowledge as well.

If one checks out threads on all different classes of surface warships, and on submarines too, its not uncommon to read many posts, debating what weapons, what sensors will be installed. Why should this thread be any different?

We have great moderators on this forum. If they think anything is 'classified', I trust their judgement to delete and chastise and/or ban the poster. That includes me.

Sure.