TKMS Type 212CD (Victoria class replacement megathread)

[YZT580]

I understand that argument.
Now apply that to the age of the 6 AOPS by the time the last 2 Rivers come off the production line? What will the ange of HDW be? Are we not right back where we started from in continuing to run ships past the natural lifespan?

With just the two categories one a year would provide the last River around 2040 by which time all the AOPS would be due for replacement and the first of the Rivers would be leaving its final mid-life. A little hurry-up wouldn't really hurt all that much and historically, you cannot expect to make it even to 2040 without needing them for real. IMHO

 

[Underway]

Which Canada now has the honours of receiving a number of early production boats which we need to replace our own aging submarines, with all of their quibbles and issues intact. The Germans and Norwegians get to sit back while we beta test the design, a design which isn't even operational as of the signing of this agreement. There is incredibly minimal room for error in this proposal from the Europeans, I expect multiple things to do wrong and the media to jump on this given how high profile it is/how sensitive of an issue submarines are in this country.

Call me a skeptic but I don't trust the Germans on this, they've shown their failings as much as they've shown their competency with past and ongoing procurements.

You're overstating things. Norway and Germany will still be getting the first of class submarines. Norway's current slots of 2029, 30 33, 35. Germany's are 31, 34. The Weir facility will be running at full capacity by 29 (400 staff are undergoing training right now). I find it likely that we'll get a 31, 34 build (which will be extra production lines). How this sched is rearranged I'm not sure.

29, 30, 31, 33, 34,35 is the drumbeat. Expectation is that 33 and 34 will be the first two "new addition" Canadian submarines (so 7-8 years from now). So under the new arrangement we'll have to see how they reorganize the deliveries. Could be any order at this point. I suspect Norway will get the first submarine either way.

As for TKMS failings in submarine production? The company which has successfully delivered about 40 submarines in the last 40 years is having submarine building problems? They aren't. I can't find anything that says their submarines are having QC or build issues.

They had issues with the F125 but that's a surface fleet issue. And its one project. Their MEKO is an extremely successful design which has been delivered multiple times to countries around the world (different variants). They were selected to take back building ships away from Damien which were working on the F126 project.

 

[Infanteer]

Interesting take by some:

Canada doesn't get new equipment: The government sucks and our military sucks and the stuff we have sucks.

Canada gets brand new equipment: The government sucks and our military sucks and the stuff we will get sucks.

 

[Underway]

How 'colonial' of you.

The GBA+ police should be along before 'soup' this morning

'Geronimo' Codename In Bin Laden Raid Offends Native American Groups

Native American groups are furious that the term, "Geronimo," was used during the raid against Osama bin Laden. They say linking the legendary Apache warrior with the world's most vilified terrorist is disrespectful.

www.wbur.org

Won't be tribal names. But not because of GBA+ (which is a project management process honestly and not a naming process), its more complicated then that. Has a lot to do with a lot of those names being "language groups" and not actual tribes etc...

@FSTO could explain better.

From the RCD naming committee (if they just ran it back) the top contenders would be

• inspirational class, names like Courageous, or sumsuch
• provincial class, self explanatory

The use of historical figures was highly discouraged by some committee members as your just inviting issues.

The old RCN ship naming documentation encourages submarines to be named after fish, like HMCS Grisle which was a submarine we owned. Other tradition ship naming options are:

• islands
• bays
• cities

How many Rivers concurrently will Irving have the ability to work on?

Two - Three. Depending on how you define "work on". One inside, one outside and one in the water. More if you consider "work on" to include things like design and supply management.

 

[Underway]

Interesting take by some:

Canada doesn't get new equipment: The government sucks and our military sucks and the stuff we have sucks.

Canada gets brand new equipment: The government sucks and our military sucks and the stuff we will get sucks.

I know. It's weird. I think that a lot of this is reflexive because we normally don't get nice things. So anything nice we do get people are suspicious about. Also a lot of back seat project and contract experts here (myself included), who are missing a lot of information.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Two - Three. Depending on how you define "work on". One inside, one outside and one in the water. More if you consider "work on" to include things like design and supply management.

Its good but its not where TKMS will be with 8+ boats being worked on at 2 locations.

IF TKMS is able to get Wismar at the same level of rate of production as Kiel, they will deliver to us 12 boats before we have 12 Rivers commissioned. That is something that they should be proud of, if they can of course pull it off.

If the RCN going forward is to have 40ish combat/support ships ((AOPS (6), JSS (2-4), Destroyers (15) , Light Frigates (12-20), a total ranging from 35-45 ships)), excluding the Subs, I don't see how Seaspan and Irving can continue to be the only 2 locations where combat/support ships are built.

 

[oldcpu]

How 'colonial' of you.

The GBA+ police should be along before 'soup' this morning

'Geronimo' Codename In Bin Laden Raid Offends Native American Groups

Native American groups are furious that the term, "Geronimo," was used during the raid against Osama bin Laden. They say linking the legendary Apache warrior with the world's most vilified terrorist is disrespectful.

www.wbur.org

The Royal Canadian Navy's approach for use of native Canadian names is historically rooted in a tradition of deep respect, dating back to the wartime Tribal-class destroyers and the post-war Ojibwa, Onondaga, and Okanagan submarines. In Commonwealth naval tradition, naming a class of warships after a nation or people or using native names of geography, is considered an exceptional honor meant to project their identity, strength, and legacy onto the global stage alongside the country's major cities and historical figures.

Far from being a colonial appropriation, it is intended to be an intentional recognition of Indigenous Nations as founding partners in Canada’s history, sovereignty, and ongoing national defense.

Like many things in life, I guess those with different backgrounds can view things differently.

 

[Rainbow1910]

You're overstating things. Norway and Germany will still be getting the first of class submarines. Norway's current slots of 2029, 30 33, 35. Germany's are 31, 34. The Weir facility will be running at full capacity by 29 (400 staff are undergoing training right now). I find it likely that we'll get a 31, 34 build (which will be extra production lines). How this sched is rearranged I'm not sure.

What I understood was that Canada would be getting very early production boats to actually meet our timeline, which would likely mean effectively the first boats or ones very soon after.

As for TKMS failings in submarine production? The company which has successfully delivered about 40 submarines in the last 40 years is having submarine building problems? They aren't. I can't find anything that says their submarines are having QC or build issues.

The company who magically shifted the primary issues with their bid forward at the last minute to pull out a win? I’m inherently skeptical of this sort of last minute asspull as being legitimate and not something to just grab the contract and figure out later. If the Koreans had done this, I’d be just as skeptical at the end of the day. Germans are infamous for being impossible to get spare parts and support out of, how is this going to work when we’re just another customer out of multiple? They’ve talked a big game regarding integrating our supply chains into their own, but are we going to actually hold them to account here if that starts falling apart? Canada is infamously weak regarding contract implementation and punishing parties who break said contracts.

The Germans have a good record, but I want to see tangibles before I’m satisfied with this. We have an untested design that’s juggling multiple customers at once with promises that another shipyard coming online will somehow fix all of these concerns. You can’t sail a pedigree and reputation at the end of the day.

I’m happy to eat my words if everything works out fine in the end, but I’m not so naive to be taken for a ride by a European defence contractor with promises and a shiny brochure.

From the RCD naming committee (if they just ran it back) the top contenders would be

• inspirational class, names like Courageous, or sumsuch

Hopefully we don’t just ape naming schemes from the Royal Navy and can use something more relevant or interesting.

The old RCN ship naming documentation encourages submarines to be named after fish, like HMCS Grisle which was a submarine we owned. Other tradition ship naming options are:

• islands
• bays
• cities

I wouldn’t be surprised if we default again to something as lame and uninspired as cities once again, as effectively the entire RCN was named after so recently. Sea creatures would be much more interesting, although as many in the US state, “fish don’t vote.”

The Royal Canadian Navy's approach for use of native Canadian names is historically rooted in a tradition of deep respect, dating back to the wartime Tribal-class destroyers and the post-war Ojibwa, Onondaga, and Okanagan submarines. In Commonwealth naval tradition, naming a class of warships after a nation or people or using native names of geography, is considered an exceptional honor meant to project their identity, strength, and legacy onto the global stage alongside the country's major cities and historical figures.

Far from being a colonial appropriation, it is intended to be an intentional recognition of Indigenous Nations as founding partners in Canada’s history, sovereignty, and ongoing national defense.

Like many things in life, I guess those with different backgrounds can view things differently.

From what snippets we’ve had shared elsewhere on the forum, the “Tribal” naming scheme fell apart or otherwise was not chosen for the River class specifically due to to indigenous politics and politics more broadly. For every person who sees having a nation named after themselves as being an honour, others view it as a colonial establishment co-opting them for purposes they do not support. How do you pick what indigenous nations or groups get/deserve recognition over another? Some “nations” aren’t actual nations as we understand it but more of a loose language group. This gets very sticky when you realize there is significant animosity between some groups themselves and not all nations themselves even agree on these sorts of things. What is the actual name you use to attach to a nation? The name within their language with their own text, or an anglicized version?

The juice wasn’t worth the squeeze and they defaulted to an easy and non confrontational River class designation.

provincial class, self explanatory

Now you get to decide which province gets cut from the roster lol.

 

[oldcpu]

As for TKMS failings in submarine production? The company which has successfully delivered about 40 submarines in the last 40 years is having submarine building problems? They aren't. I can't find anything that says their submarines are having QC or build issues.

While i had a preference for the KSS-III batch II, I also think the TKMS Type-212CD has the earmarks of a great submarine. I do believe that.

I am encouraged by this not being a TKMS export submarine, but rather this being the same submarine being delivered to Norway and Germany.

Why do I say that?

While ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) is globally recognized as a premier designer and builder of conventional submarines, the initial deployment of the Type-214 export class highlighted that even top-tier shipbuilders, such as TKMS, can face complex first-in-class MAJOR teething issues.

During sea trials in the mid-2000s, Greece's lead TKMS Type-214 export boat, HS Papanikolis, suffered from severe surface stability flaws—including excessive rolling in rough seas — alongside premature propeller cavitation, periscope vibrations, and overheating within the polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) hydrogen fuel cells of the Air-Independent Propulsion (AIP) system. TKMS eventually resolved the hydrodynamic balance issues by installing a 21-ton structural modification to adjust the vessel's center of gravity. This caused major contractual issues - needless to say.

South Korea’s domestic build of the TKMS Type-214 class of export submarines (the KSS-II or Son Won-il class) also encountered distinct, systemic propulsion defects rather than hull-form instability. The fleet was severely impacted by manufacturing defects in the Siemens-supplied inverter modules, where a breakdown of cable insulation coatings led to degradation, rust, and catastrophic cooling fluid leaks that flooded the electronics on boats like the ROKS Jeong Ji.

Because these highly proprietary components could not be repaired locally due to strict technology-transfer limits, the modules had to be uninstalled and shipped back to Germany, creating lengthy operational bottlenecks before the fleet achieved full maturity.

I note those were relatively early TKMS Type-214 deliveries, and also note the TKMS Type-214 was an export submarine, not intended for the German Navy.

 

[Kirkhill]

Is this right?

Seaspan is the lead contractor for sustainment on both coasts?

Canada sub decision a big deal for B.C.-based Seaspan Shipyards

Canada's decision to spend a reported $100 billion on new submarines will include a big investment in maintenance facilities of Seaspan.

vancouversun.com

"Seaspan, whose Victoria operations already do maintenance for the navy’s existing submarines, signed on as the “sovereign sustainment” partner to the German shipbuilder Thyssenkrupp Marines Systems’ (TKMS) bid."

...


"“Canada has made a generational decision about its security and sovereignty” with the sub purchase, McCarthy said, and Seaspan is ramping up to do its part on the sustainment side of the deal.

"Hargreaves was reluctant to talk about numbers involved in the proposal, but by way of comparison noted that among Seaspan’s 1,000 workers at the Victoria shipyard, about 300 are devoted to the maintenance program for the navy’s four existing Victoria-class submarines.

"Maintaining a fleet of up to 12, with facilities on both coasts, would be a considerably larger operation, Hargreaves said. He added that Seaspan will probably look to an East Coast shipyard, most likely Irving Shipbuilding, as a partner for Halifax facilities."

 

[Underway]

What I understood was that Canada would be getting very early production boats to actually meet our timeline, which would likely mean effectively the first boats or ones very soon after.

Yep probably number two or three. Then after that it doesn't really matter.

The company who magically shifted the primary issues with their bid forward at the last minute to pull out a win? I’m inherently skeptical of this sort of last minute asspull as being legitimate and not something to just grab the contract and figure out later.

They didn't magically do it as I stated before. Norway in particular stepped in an committed one of their own boats to sweeten the pot. TKMS bid that went in at the same time as Korean one stated 2033 as the first Canadian boat. Norway's commitment came when? I don't know.

The Germans have a good record, but I want to see tangibles before I’m satisfied with this. We have an untested design that’s juggling multiple customers at once with promises that another shipyard coming online will somehow fix all of these concerns. You can’t sail a pedigree and reputation at the end of the day.

I’m happy to eat my words if everything works out fine in the end, but I’m not so naive to be taken for a ride by a European defence contractor with promises and a shiny brochure.

If TKMS has a history of taking their submarine contractors for a ride that would be pretty clear. Their reputation is quite the opposite with decades of integration and experience. So I'm going glass is half full on this. Yes they had first of class problems (Type 214... ) for sure. I expect there will be some for this boat as well.

Hopefully we don’t just ape naming schemes from the Royal Navy and can use something more relevant or interesting.


I wouldn’t be surprised if we default again to something as lame and uninspired as cities once again, as effectively the entire RCN was named after not so recently. Sea creatures would be much more interesting, although as many in the US state, “fish don’t vote.”

Agreed on both points. Fish do not vote (neither do rivers though... lol)

Now you get to decide which province gets cut from the roster lol.

12 subs = 10 provinces 2 territories.
Yukon gets cut. That's a river so it will be part of the River Class!

 

[oldcpu]

From what snippets we’ve had shared elsewhere on the forum, the “Tribal” naming scheme fell apart or otherwise was not chosen for the River class specifically due to to indigenous politics and politics more broadly.

I don't think everyone shares that view for 'rejection' of "Tribal" naming for the River Class. Some (myself for one) thought it was time to replicate the names from the 'steamers' ... which is what they did. I served on a number of the steamers, and happy to see their names repeated in the River Class.

For every person who sees having a nation named after themselves as being an honour, others view it as a colonial establishment co-opting them for purposes they do not support. How do you pick what indigenous nations or groups get/deserve recognition over another?

This is no more than what was done in the past for WW-II warship Tribal class names in the RCN, nor for the 4 names selected for the DDH-280s. This is not a "prefer" your native group background over another's native group's background when choosing names. It never was. You are seeing things that are not there.

Nor is any name, a name that will please everyone. It won't please everyone. No name will please everyone. But its far better IMHO to adopt an approach that goes to the roots our the identity of Canada and the first peoples who were here in Canada - showing Canadian pride in them by the name selection.

...

still - the question was asked for suggested names. I proposed some names - and provided my rationale .

your turn.

Feel free to post the EXACT 12 names you like, and at the same time justify with a rationale for each the names you picked, and also justify any names you did NOT pick of same grouping.

In having an inability to assign every native word to a submarine name, I think you see malice, where there is none.

 

[oldcpu]

From what snippets we’ve had shared elsewhere on the forum, the “Tribal” naming scheme fell apart or otherwise was not chosen for the River class specifically due to to indigenous politics and politics more broadly. For every person who sees having a nation named after themselves as being an honour, others view it as a colonial establishment co-opting them for purposes they do not support. How do you pick what indigenous nations or groups get/deserve recognition over another? Some “nations” aren’t actual nations as we understand it but more of a loose language group. This gets very sticky when you realize there is significant animosity between some groups themselves and not all nations themselves even agree on these sorts of things. What is the actual name you use to attach to a nation? The name within their language with their own text, or an anglicized version?

The juice wasn’t worth the squeeze and they defaulted to an easy and non confrontational River class designation.


Now you get to decide which province gets cut from the roster lol.

I want to point out specific words from the Canadian government website on the River Class Destroyer ... which clearly you did not read (granted it is a bit buried) ..

River-class destroyer - Canada.ca

The River class destroyer will ensure that Canada can continue to monitor and defend its waters and make significant contributions to international naval operations.

www.canada.ca

After noting the 1st three River Class will be named after Canada's rivers, it goes on to say (and I quote the Canadian government web page):

The River-class ships will be named in honour of the vessels of our past and celebrate the heritage of Indigenous Peoples

I can only assume you never read that "celebrate the heritage of Indigenous Peoples".

I assume you figure that is also colonial?

 

[oldcpu]

12 subs = 10 provinces 2 territories.
Yukon gets cut. That's a river so it will be part of the River Class!

I think selecting province names works, ... although one does has to avoid duplication (or accept duplication) with names of Rivers ... (for example there is a Saskatchewan River for example ) .

As for avoiding native names, note some Canadian history - for those who are rusty on the topic :

Quebec: Derived from the Algonquin (specifically Mi'kmaq) word kébec, which translates to "where the river narrows" or "strait." This originally referred specifically to the narrowing of the St. Lawrence River near the current site of Quebec City, where the massive waterway constricts down to roughly one kilometer wide.

Ontario: Roots trace back to the Iroquoian (Huron/Wyandot) language family. The name likely stems from ontare (meaning "lake") combined with the suffix -io (meaning "good," "sparkling," or "beautiful"). It translates directly to "beautiful lake" or "sparkling water," originally used to describe Lake Ontario before expanding to designate the Upper Canada province.

Manitoba: The etymology points to a linguistic blending of Cree (manito-wapâw) and Anishinaabemowin (Ojibwe, manidoowaaling), meaning "strait of the spirit" or "the narrows of the Great Spirit." It referred to the Lake Manitoba Narrows, where heavy winds drive waves against the limestone shorelines, producing a deep, echoing, drum-like roar that the First Nations historically attributed to the Manitou (Great Spirit). Métis leader Louis Riel successfully recommended the name during the 1870 negotiations.

Saskatchewan: Derived from the Cree name for the Saskatchewan River: kisiskāciwani-sīpiy, which translates literally to "swift-flowing river." In 1882, the British colonial administration simplified the word to create a district within the North-West Territories, which eventually became an official province in 1905.

Further note reference the 3 territories:

Yukon: Named after the Yukon River, coming from the Gwich'in word Yookkene, meaning "great river" or "white-water river."

Nunavut: Meaning "our land" in Inuktitut, chosen when the territory separated from the Northwest Territories in 1999. It was established as a public government territory following a historic land claims agreement, giving the eastern Arctic its own distinct jurisdiction where the vast majority of residents are Inuit.

Northwest Territories: Though an English descriptor, the native name Denendeh (meaning "The Land of the People" in the Dene Athabaskan languages) is widely recognized and frequently used within the territory alongside the official colonial name.

So if one is 'offended' by using native names, or if one thinks its 'colonial', .. then using names of all Canadian provinces won't cut it.

As I pointed out before, choosing a name will NOT please everyone.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I don't think everyone shares that view for 'rejection' of "Tribal" naming for the River Class. Some (myself for one) thought it was time to replicate the names from the 'steamers' ... which is what they did. I served on a number of the steamers, and happy to see their names repeated in the River Class.

I'm not talking about opinions, I'm referencing what we're aware actually happened officially or unofficially regarding the "Tribal" naming scheme for the River class.

We have folks on this forum who were directly involved with the process and they have specifically listed some of the reasons why the "Tribal" naming scheme was not used, even though there was apparently substantial support and effort put into the proposals themselves.

I’ll have more later but we seriously looked at tribal names but it was so fraught with landmines (anglicized names, wrong names, which tribes take precedence for a language), etc) that we felt the Rivers can be leveraged to encompass the various names of the FN within the ship itself.

This is no more than what was done in the past for WW-II warship Tribal class names in the RCN, nor for the 4 names selected for the DDH-280s. This is not a "prefer" your native group background over another's native group's background when choosing names. It never was. You are seeing things that are not there.

We are living in an entirely different world, culturally and politically, compared to the timeframes described above when the WWII era and Cold War era "Tribal" namesakes were both last used. The Government was not actively weighing the considerations of political blowback for cultural appropriation or other offences while we were fighting the Germans or back during the Cold War, that is very much not the same these days in a hyper politicized climate where Indigenous rights and issues are front stage for many folks.

There are winners and losers whenever you have to pick namesakes for ships, it might not be the goal to "prefer" one nation/group over another but you are fundamentally doing so when some make the grade and others are left on the cutting room floor. Considering the relations these groups have between one another, that is a very real political consideration. Politicians were already trying to cut each others throats to get their towns and cities onto the CPF, MCDV and Victoria classes, imagine when you cross that line into the territory of Indigenous inter-nation politics.

Nor is any name, a name that will please everyone. It won't please everyone. No name will please everyone. But its far better IMHO to adopt an approach that goes to the roots our the identity of Canada and the first peoples who were here in Canada - showing Canadian pride in them by the name selection.

Yet we have seen in modern cases regarding the RCN that there is active consideration to please as many people as possible, just look at the recent name choices. The widescale use of towns and cities for the CPF, MCDV and Victoria classes is the RCN's attempt to bridge the gap between the service and the greater public to build relations and establish a connection nationwide. AOPS is named after prominent Canadian naval figures, but is obviously curated for maximum representation across the class with multiple races, both official linguistic groups and a broad geographical group chosen. The Rivers are yet another attempt to appeal directly to Canadians through geography to build a relationship, while also working to keep our tradition of former vessel namesakes alive.

The biggest objective seems to pick names that will please and make connections with the most amount of people, while honouring our naval heritage. I am in agreement, the "Tribal" namesake was by far and away my preferred candidate for the River class, but it is relatively obvious why that was ultimately not the case. That is going to very likely transfer over to the CPSP as well, as these issues were obviously not addressed in the short timeframe between the two programs.

still - the question was asked for suggested names. I proposed some names - and provided my rationale .

your turn.

Feel free to post the EXACT 12 names you like, and at the same time justify with a rationale for each the names you picked, and also justify any names you did NOT pick of same grouping.

In having an inability to assign every native word to a submarine name, I think you see malice, where there is none.

Again, I get the idea that you think I am against the "Tribal" names themselves, which anybody who is familiar with my opinions and post history can tell you is not the case. Feel free to look into my post history back to 2022 where I am actively supporting the idea of using this naming scheme for the very reasons you describe, but I am not unaware of the very real political pitfalls that come with that choice.

I largely enjoy using the Rivers as an alternative scheme due to the extensive ties they have with the recent generation of RCN sailors from the Cold War, alongside the vessels which served prior to that in period surrounding WWII. The St. Laurent-class and its derivatives formed the backbone of the RCN for decades with some fairly unique Canadian names, unofficial nicknames and service records throughout, it's a shame to let that fall to the wayside. Saguenay and Skeena as the first pair would be doubly fitting if they went with a River naming scheme considering they were the first pair of purpose built warships ever ordered for Canada. I really am not a fan of naming ships after towns and cities, I understand why it was done in an attempt to better connect with the general population but it comes off as as overdone and lazy when three classes of combatants we have use effectively the same scheme.

Naming the class after provinces and territories doesn't sound bad either although it would leave you two ships short of the current order. It's a violation of the class naming scheme but I would like them to reuse HMCS Niobe and HMCS Rainbow sometime for RCN ships at sea, having both of the RCN's first namesakes leading a class made up of all of the provinces and territories has some decent symbolism there. If the AOPS hadn't started the trend of using figures from the RCN's history, an alternative could have been something like the USN with their destroyers although I have my doubts if that would work considering the amount of scrutiny given to historical figures these days.

HMCS Sioux is another potential addition for the Tribal class given it has battle honors and served in WWII/Korea.

Atleast in my opinion for the CSC, my preferences in order from favorite to least favorite for naming schemes would likely be something like:
Tribal class > River class > Province class > City class.

CSC deserves some fitting names given their capability, I think Tribal, River or potentially even Provinces could serve them well.

Not all great ideas survive contact with the public and politicians, and it very much seems like the politicians wanted nothing to do with the bundle of landmines that would be a new "Tribal" class naming scheme.

I want to point out specific words from the Canadian government website on the River Class Destroyer ... which clearly you did not read (granted it is a bit buried) ..

After noting the 1st three River Class will be named after Canada's rivers, it goes on to say (and I quote the Canadian government web page):

I can only assume you never read that "celebrate the heritage of Indigenous Peoples".

I assume you figure that is also colonial?

I have been following the program very closely for years at this point, I am well aware of that post and the Govts logic here. Unlike a full "Tribal" naming scheme where the Indigenous connection is implicitly front and centre, its connection to the River class namesake is more secondary. The River class namesake has its primary connections to Canadians through geography and the Navy through multiple prior namesakes, while secondary connections exist to the Indigenous peoples of Canada through the names of the Rivers themselves and what the waterways signify to said groups. It is an easy win to attach an Indigenous meaning to the River class, while you can shed any of the sort of political fallout that would have came with a "Tribal" namesake in comparison.

Again, I am putting forward arguments I have heard and would be brought up elsewhere against a "Tribal" class. I would appreciate being permitted to play devils advocate and not have myself painted with a brush I do not agree with. I can disagree with reasoning while still putting forward that it exists and holds real weight.

So if one is 'offended' by using native names, then using names of all Canadian provinces won't cut it.

As I pointed out before, choosing a name will NOT please everyone.

This is very much not the same as a "Tribal" class namesake, and I feel its disingenuous to try and stretch the connection. People are not going to break into the base linguistics that make up the anglicized names of Canadian provinces and say they should not be used due to their Indigenous origins, the considerations are fundamentally not the same as what we are otherwise discussing. There is no similar amount realistic controversy and risk to that avenue, compared to the "Tribals".

 

[Underway]

I have been following the program very closely for years at this point, I am well aware of that post and the Govts logic here. Unlike a full "Tribal" naming scheme where the Indigenous connection is implicitly front and centre, its connection to the River class namesake is more secondary. The River class namesake has its primary connections to Canadians through geography and the Navy through multiple prior namesakes, while secondary connections exist to the Indigenous peoples of Canada through the names of the Rivers themselves and what the waterways signify to said groups. It is an easy win to attach an Indigenous meaning to the River class, while you can shed any of the sort of political fallout that would have came with a "Tribal" namesake in comparison.

That whole post was well written (as all your posts are). The River Class idea will have first nations name plates for the various flats and passageways using the river's other names. Similar to how Burma Road became named after a prominent street in the namesake cities.

 

[Green On!]

4/8 right.

Albania, Belgium, Greece, Latvia, Luxembourg, Romania, Türkiye, and Ukraine.

Eight countries commit to supporting the Canada-led Defence, Security and Resilience Bank

Press Release + Noah Note

www.truenorthstrategicreview.ca

 

[SeaKingTacco]

While i had a preference for the KSS-III batch II, I also think the TKMS Type-212CD has the earmarks of a great submarine. I do believe that.

I am encouraged by this not being a TKMS export submarine, but rather this being the same submarine being delivered to Norway and Germany.

Why do I say that?

While ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) is globally recognized as a premier designer and builder of conventional submarines, the initial deployment of the Type-214 export class highlighted that even top-tier shipbuilders, such as TKMS, can face complex first-in-class MAJOR teething issues.

During sea trials in the mid-2000s, Greece's lead TKMS Type-214 export boat, HS Papanikolis, suffered from severe surface stability flaws—including excessive rolling in rough seas — alongside premature propeller cavitation, periscope vibrations, and overheating within the polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) hydrogen fuel cells of the Air-Independent Propulsion (AIP) system. TKMS eventually resolved the hydrodynamic balance issues by installing a 21-ton structural modification to adjust the vessel's center of gravity. This caused major contractual issues - needless to say.

South Korea’s domestic build of the TKMS Type-214 class of export submarines (the KSS-II or Son Won-il class) also encountered distinct, systemic propulsion defects rather than hull-form instability. The fleet was severely impacted by manufacturing defects in the Siemens-supplied inverter modules, where a breakdown of cable insulation coatings led to degradation, rust, and catastrophic cooling fluid leaks that flooded the electronics on boats like the ROKS Jeong Ji.

Because these highly proprietary components could not be repaired locally due to strict technology-transfer limits, the modules had to be uninstalled and shipped back to Germany, creating lengthy operational bottlenecks before the fleet achieved full maturity.

I note those were relatively early TKMS Type-214 deliveries, and also note the TKMS Type-214 was an export submarine, not intended for the German Navy.

Aka…subs are hard.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Is this right?

Seaspan is the lead contractor for sustainment on both coasts?

Canada sub decision a big deal for B.C.-based Seaspan Shipyards

Canada's decision to spend a reported $100 billion on new submarines will include a big investment in maintenance facilities of Seaspan.

vancouversun.com

"Seaspan, whose Victoria operations already do maintenance for the navy’s existing submarines, signed on as the “sovereign sustainment” partner to the German shipbuilder Thyssenkrupp Marines Systems’ (TKMS) bid."

...


"“Canada has made a generational decision about its security and sovereignty” with the sub purchase, McCarthy said, and Seaspan is ramping up to do its part on the sustainment side of the deal.

"Hargreaves was reluctant to talk about numbers involved in the proposal, but by way of comparison noted that among Seaspan’s 1,000 workers at the Victoria shipyard, about 300 are devoted to the maintenance program for the navy’s four existing Victoria-class submarines.

"Maintaining a fleet of up to 12, with facilities on both coasts, would be a considerably larger operation, Hargreaves said. He added that Seaspan will probably look to an East Coast shipyard, most likely Irving Shipbuilding, as a partner for Halifax facilities."

That is what I understand, yes.

 

[Thumper81]

That is what I understand, yes.

I thought Babcock did all the EDWP Sub maintenance? They just happen to be at VSL (Seaspan). I never saw Seaspan people on the East Coast, just Babcock. Mind you, FMF still does a lot of it too.