TKMS Type 212CD (Victoria class replacement megathread)

[OldSolduer]

I'm just a weather guy with mostly "surface level" knowledge of oceanography, but I'm guessing they were in the same spot because it was the best layer to hide from other subs...

As you said, eventually, when everybody is trying to be in the same layers, there will be conflicts.

Just an infantry guy but I understand why things like this happen. An AESOP tried to explain it to me. I told him I read alot of Tom Clancy.
He then decided I knew stuff ..,

 

[oldcpu]

SSBN operations are deliberately compartmentalized. Their patrol areas, routes and schedules are among the most closely guarded national secrets, including from allies.

Exactly. SSBN operations are compartmentalized. Which means SSBN deployments will be missing from any NATO underwater management.

The same, to a lessor extent, is true for SSNs, which may have clandestine missions that are nationally not considered approprite to share will all of NATO nations. Such submarine deployment information, other than participations in NATO exercise, is unlikely to be present in any NATO underwater management.

I am all for NATO co-ordination to avoid inappropriate and unintentional interaction between NATO country submarines. But IMHO you massively overstated what is in place - I noted such above, and to which, I think you may agree, re: SSNs and SSBNs.

What transpired 2 decades ago with SSBNs colliding is in part due to NATO underwater management not extending to include such submarines. I seriously doubt that NATO underwater management fidelity has changed in that regard today.

It is reasonable to assume that Britain and France reviewed the incident and refined their procedures.

Exactly - and its far more likely that billateral agreements on shared submarine deployment information is in place than relying on NATO underwater management.

Classification in regards to further detail on this likely precludes more in depth discussion and debate, regardless as to which view / persective one may have on the matter.

But getting back to the topic, re Type-212CDs for Canada, this IMHO will have strategic implications, not only in regard to NATO underwater management, but even more so in regards to Canada(RCN)-US(USN) and Canada(RCN)-UK (RN) bilateral agreements in regards to the Arctic and submarines.

 

[Kilted]

My thoughts on the naming process, we could just use the British system of (to quote Tom Clancy) naming them after our Mothers-in-law.

 

[Kilted]

There is RCN history for this though. The first 6 subs were numbered. HMCS CC-1, HMCS CC-2, HMCS CH-14, HMCS CH-15, HMCS U-190, and HMCS U-889. So name the subs HMCS CU-1 through HMCS CU-12, no one is offended and the earliest origins of the RCN’s submarine service is honoured.

But I thought that submarines wanted to avoid being seen?

 

[oldcpu]

On the topic of submarines, to put the RCN planned procurement into perspective in regards to NATO countries, I thought to compare the RCN to some other NATO countries submarine fleets ... (where note, this list of mine may not be 100% accurate):

I think the ten NATO countries with the largest submarine fleets, ordered (approximately) from the most to least, including their active classes, quantities, and propulsion types.

1. United States​

• Total Submarines: ~64–66
• Propulsion: Nuclear (100%)
  • Ohio-class (SSBN/SSGN): 14 active
  • Virginia-class (SSN): 22 active
  • Los Angeles-class (SSN): 24 active
  • Seawolf-class (SSN): 3 active

2. United Kingdom​

• Total Submarines: 10
• Propulsion: Nuclear (100%)
  • Vanguard-class (SSBN): 4 active
  • Astute-class (SSN): 6 active (with newer hulls progressing through trials)

3. France​

• Total Submarines: 9–10
• Propulsion: Nuclear (100%)
  • Triomphant-class (SSBN): 4 active
  • Suffren-class / Barracuda-class (SSN): 3 active (plus additional hulls progressioning through sea trials and delivery), progressively replacing the Rubis-class
  • Rubis-class (SSN): 1 active (nearing retirement, being phased out)

4. Turkey​

• Total Submarines: 12
• Propulsion: Conventional (Diesel-Electric) — with ongoing AIP integration
  • Reis-class (Type 214TN): 2 active (equipped with AIP; TCG Piri Reis and TCG Hızır Reis operational, with subsequent hulls like Murat Reis proceeding through trials)
  • Gür-class (Type 209T2/1400): 4 active (non-AIP)
  • Preveze-class (Type 209/1400): 4 active (non-AIP)
  • Atılay-class (Type 209/1200): 2 active remaining (non-AIP; older hulls actively drawing down as new Reis units commission)

5. Italy​

• Total Submarines: 8
• Propulsion: Conventional (Diesel-Electric)
  • Todaro-class (Type 212A): 4 active (equipped with AIP)
  • Sauro-class: 4 active (non-AIP)

6. Greece​

• Total Submarines: 8
• Propulsion: Conventional (Diesel-Electric)
  • Papanikolis-class (Type 214): 4 active (equipped with AIP)
  • Type 209/1100 & 209/1200 (Poseidon/Glafkos-classes): 4 active (non-AIP)

7. Germany​

• Total Submarines: 6 [where Germany with the Type-212CD coming could end up with more than 6 total for a while].
• Propulsion: Conventional (Diesel-Electric)
  • Type 212A: 6 active (equipped with AIP)

8. Norway​

• Total Submarines: 6 [where I believe Norway will replace its Ula class on a one-for-one basis with Type-212CD]
• Propulsion: Conventional (Diesel-Electric)
  • Ula-class (TKMS Type-210): 6 active (non-AIP)

9. Spain​

• Total submarines: 2
• Propulsion: Conventional (Diesel-Electric) — with retroactive AIP integration planned for early hulls
  • S-80 Plus class (Isaac Peral-class): 1 active (non-AIP currently; lead boat Isaac Peral is in service operating on standard diesel-electric power, pending its scheduled future overhaul to receive the BEST-AIP system. Later boats will incorporate the system during construction.) A total of four boats are planned
  • Galerna-class (Agosta-class): 1 active (non-AIP; retained as a transitional asset while the S-80 program matures).

10. Canada​

• Total Submarines: 4
• Propulsion: Conventional (Diesel-Electric)
  • Victoria-class (ex-Upholder): 4 active (non-AIP)

From that, I think it makes a valid point that Canada, in going from quantity four aging old ex-Upholder (Victoria) class, to quantity twelve Type-212CD submarines is a very very big leap. A fleet of twelve Type 212CD submarines equipped with AIP and lithium-ion batteries would likely constitute one of NATO's most capable conventional submarine forces (although likely only 1/2 of these boats may be based out of Halifax - with other half based out of Esquimalt, and TBD number assigned to Arctic as opposed to the Atlantic or Pacific).

Obviously the above is just my own deliberations.

Edit: Not listed were Sweden (with 4 AIP equipped boats), Netherlands (with 3 boats) and Portugal (with 2 AIP equipped boats) and Poland (1 Kilo class submarine) are the remaining NATO countries with submarines as best I recall. Likely Sweden should have been listed in the above.