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.

 

[daftandbarmy]

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.

More importantly, will we stand up a RCN Submarine Force Reserve "The Underwavy Navy" (I just invented that, please steal it if it already isn't a thing)...

... maybe based on the old Victoria boats - to augment and sustain our new, huge, sub force.

 

[YZT580]

More importantly, will we stand up a RCN Submarine Force Reserve "The Underwavy Navy" (I just invented that, please steal it if it already isn't a thing)...

... maybe based on the old Victoria boats - to augment and sustain our new, huge, sub force.

you are ambitious aren't you? From everything I have heard or read by the time we have the 212CD boats the Victoria's probably won't be safe to take to sea without spending beaucoup to cash just to keep them capable of going down and most importantly coming back up again. Just a guess.

 

[daftandbarmy]

you are ambitious aren't you? From everything I have heard or read by the time we have the 212CD boats the Victoria's probably won't be safe to take to sea without spending beaucoup to cash just to keep them capable of going down and most importantly coming back up again. Just a guess.

Good point... better give them to CANSOFCOMM instead

 

[Underway]

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.

You are overthinking things. Submarines are not going to be "assigned" to any particular region aside from the coast they are ported in. Their deployments will depend on any number of eventualities and changes. Ships/boats by their very nature are flexible.

The current use case is as I stated earlier. 4 subs at sea 80% of the time. Two on each coast. Their deployment locations will vary with the seasons, the threat other sensor capability and various other factors. And they are not (despite media to the contrary) arctic submarines. They are submarines that can go under ice for short periods of time. Their expected patrol zones will include the two Arctic approaches, the Pacific approaches and the Atlantic approaches. This is why the RCN wants 12 submarines. That plan will have to change if we don't end up getting all 12.

As far as arctic capable sub tenders... no. You won't be tending a submarine in the ice. And the submarines will not be under the ice far enough that they can't escape if they need too. So any support vessels will not need to be ice capable.

As for arctic mobile bases, that's quite literally a pie in the sky discussion and has no bearing right now. Those wouldn't be procured for just the subs, but as a CAF wide service and support project.

Lets get the subs in the water, see what they can do, use the existing AOR's as support in the short term and see if we even need submarine tenders. My guess is that we would probably just get two more PRO class instead. If there are special sub support capabilities needed the last two could be modified or the RCN could just develope a modular sub support package.

 

[Czech_pivo]

As for arctic mobile bases, that's quite literally a pie in the sky discussion and has no bearing right now. Those wouldn't be procured for just the subs, but as a CAF wide service and support project.

In the interim, utilizing Nuuk I think would make alot of sense until we come up with our longer term game plan.

 

[oldcpu]

You are overthinking things.

No.

12 conventional submarines - if that many procured - will be significant. Anyone who does not consider such in my view is failing to appreciate such. Given that significance, - A failure to think ahead (and says "overthinking" ) IMHO risks the capability of these boats being under used.

Clearly we disagree.

Submarines are not going to be "assigned" to any particular region aside from the coast they are ported in. Their deployments will depend on any number of eventualities and changes. Ships/boats by their very nature are flexible.

Obvious. And just as obvious is their home port will restrict where they are nominally (and nominally "IS" the operative word) assigned out of, restricting to some degree their nominal deployment.

The current use case is as I stated earlier. 4 subs at sea 80% of the time. Two on each coast.

I also hope they can achieve 2 boats operational with 6 on each coast. I hope that it is doable, but having only 1 operational out of 4 submarines is not uncommon. For example, there was a time when Germany with 6 TKMS boats, had none operational.

Their deployment locations will vary with the seasons, the threat other sensor capability and various other factors. And they are not (despite media to the contrary) arctic submarines. They are submarines that can go under ice for short periods of time. Their expected patrol zones will include the two Arctic approaches, the Pacific approaches and the Atlantic approaches. This is why the RCN wants 12 submarines. That plan will have to change if we don't end up getting all 12.

Yes agreed.

Which is also why, I believe if the RCN wants to have their submarine seasonal deployment time in the Arctic increased, then the RCN should consider a seasonal mobile base ship with submarine tender capability, in the Arctic, to support the submarines. That obviously will be costly and RCN will need to assess if such viable given anticipated submarine deployment and other factors.

As far as arctic capable sub tenders... no. You won't be tending a submarine in the ice. And the submarines will not be under the ice far enough that they can't escape if they need too. So any support vessels will not need to be ice capable.

In the ice? No. Of course not.

In icy waters, yes.

So we disagree. Even spring season can have icy waters. Weather can change conditions quickly. Support vessels will benefit from being ice capable to some degree. Even Harry de Wolf class have a polar class classification.

So again, we disagree.

As for arctic mobile bases, that's quite literally a pie in the sky discussion and has no bearing right now. Those wouldn't be procured for just the subs, but as a CAF wide service and support project.

Again, I disagree. Its far from being "pie in the sky".

IMHO treating such as "pie in the sky" is how navies land themselves into big trouble by not sorting out long lead procurements far in advance. Those who believe in "pie in the sky" and don't look ahead, IMHO risk finding themselves behind the 8 ball.

Lets get the subs in the water, see what they can do, use the existing AOR's as support in the short term and see if we even need submarine tenders.

Waiting until subs are in the water is IMHO a very poor approach, given the lead time for naval procurements. Given the time needed to discuss and sort concepts.

Since terms such as "pie in the sky" are being used, I counter by saying calling it "pie in the sky" risks being called such by those with a "head in the sand approach" until someone comes up and gives one a good kick. Not a good way forward. Its better to avoid the 'kick'. Discuss concepts/ideas in advance. Don't wait until its already costing one for not considering things ahead of time.

Obviously we again have a very strong disagreement here.

---

Speaking of under ice operations by AIP equipped submarines, this is the Portuguese language video about the Portuguese conventional AIP equipped submarine operation under ice journey during a NATO exercise.

I have the text translated to English (by Google) ... I am tempted to post (share) some of the tidbits here from that translation, about aspects the video noted re conventional submarine operation under ice, ... , but part of me suspects such will be treated as spam by some on this forum, ... so I am hesitant to do so. But I can post some extracts of the (google) translation if any on the forum are interested - where in particular such may be useful for any who don't want to waste time and fight with youtube to setup a subtitle translation video and then sit through the entire video.