TKMS Type 212CD (Victoria class replacement megathread)

[Colin Parkinson]

There are quite a few big AUV's in use today with the multibeam and other sensors. Most I suspect have not been adapted to look upwards. You need one that can scan 360degrees in the above, below and sideways , along with scanning in a cone forward and have enough AI to penetrate under the ice, map and then return to open water.

 

[oldcpu]

From what I can see, it will be years before these submarines are sent into the Arctic, let alone submerged through the Northwest Passage. Arctic operations will be introduced carefully and incrementally because there is very little margin for error given the conditions that can come within a very short period of time.


Given the conversations I've had, I doubt we will see dedicated submarine tenders anytime soon, if ever. The AOPVs are expected to carry the containerized SUBSAR payloads, while Canada will likely establish arrangements with allied navies for the specialized personnel and equipment required to conduct an actual rescue. IE Rescue submarine.


Before sustained under ice operations are considered, Canada must improve the availability and timeliness of its ice products, minimize gaps in satellite coverage because frankly there are, and ensure submarines can communicate with operational command when it needs to happen. Institutional access to satellite data is not the same thing as guaranteed coverage, timely processing and reliable delivery of ice products to a submerged submarine. Even deployed to the Arctic we sometimes had lags in getting ice products and often we found the product to be near useless and environmental conditions moved ice to areas where we thought there was none.


Far greater emphasis must also be placed on hydrographic survey work. We need dedicated hydrographic ships in the Arctic banging away with their multi beam echo sounder charting. Canada needs reliable, modern seabed mapping to identify safe submarine routes and avoid poorly charted underwater hazards. Those routes must provide adequate clearance beneath expected ice keels while accounting for narrow channels, shallow water and limited emergency surfacing options. Better satellite imagery can describe conditions at the surface, but it cannot replace accurate knowledge of the seabed or onboard sonar.


It would make sense that Initial operations will almost certainly concentrate on the ice edge, the marginal ice zone and short, carefully planned transits. Experience will be built progressively before anyone attempts more ambitious under ice operations. The submariners we had imbedded with Portugal was a great start, and we need to do more in that area.


As for mobile AIP reactant replenishment systems, deployed Arctic bases and the other “nice to haves,” those decisions should come later. Once Canada has selected a submarine, defined the operational concept and gathered solid evidence from trials and early operations with our enviromentals, we can make an informed decision about what infrastructure is actually required.


That is how a serious navy manages risk: crawl, walk, run. We should not design an entire Arctic support system around assumptions before the submarine has even been selected.

Through this pic up for interest from one of my deployments. The Arctic dispite the warming is still a unforgiving place.

View attachment 102088

I think a lot of what you note, need not wait for the first submarine (such as Hydrographic work and further study of ice conditions). It can start very soon. Learning about AIP replenishment can also start now. It need not wait. Your points are noted, ... but I will add to that, planning in advance is also another aspect that a serious navy uses to reduce risk.

In the Toronto Globe and Mail article ( New submarines will require extra gear after delivery to operate under ice, navy head says ) that I referenced, VAdmiral Topshee is approximately quoted having stated things more generally along the lines of what you noted, with inference to eventually having Arctic operations, presumably to be consistent with a number of top level political documents.

A minor note in the wording of your reply (I note this as it was hammered into me when I worked in NDHQ for a short while). I think it may be misleading for some to infer an 'Operational Concept' may not yet already written nor already in place. I think you meant 'doctrine' or an 'UPDATED operational concept', perhaps with emphasis on 'updated' ? Typically a Concept of Operations document come BEFORE a procurement. Often long before procurement. It would surprise me if there is no current "Concept of Operations" document re: the Canadian Patrol Submarine.

Of course that begs the question .. what does the current Concept of Operations say?

I think it would be unusual for an existing 'Concept of Operations' not matching what is being stated in top level meetings about the plan/concept of 'sustained submarine Arctic presence' and 'northern submarine patrols'. If not stated, it would be an unusual incongruity.

Perhaps the current 'Concept of Operations' has a gradual Arctic presence described? Perhaps more words than that and perhaps less words than that? I suspect like myself, most of us do not know precisely what is in the current Concept of Operations. We only have what is in higher level documents/briefs to go by. I have faith though, in the RCN, and I trust they are doing their best with the resources they have. If nothing at present in the current Concept of Operations document, then that document can always be updated. A mute point perhaps, ... but those who were never worked in NDHQ and/or military procurement of major equipment may not know that detail.

With regard to early operations, I believe the RCN should really try to avoid re-inventing the wheel. Having many many initial close to ice operations as you described, would in many respects, be re-inventing the wheel for such, as the USN, with diesel-electric boats, did early ice-edge exploration, much like you described. They explored the ice edge with conventional boats, prior to (and with) their first SSN.

The USN has the Arctic Submarine Laboratory (ASL), where if there are traditional US-Canada naval relations, and if no strategic objections, the US may be willing to support the RCN with the Arctic Operations Specialist (AOS) (commonly referred to as "ice pilots " ) , bringing their decades of experience. However clearly that is not assured given not only the current political "tariffs" situation, but also not assured given US views re: Arctic sovereignty. It would be unfortunate if the RCN has to re-invent the wheel here.

But if USN Arctic Submarine Laboratory (ASL) support can be provided, it would by far be the safest approach to utilize, so to make an RCN sustained Arctic presence safer and potentially viable. I think we both agree in the need to maximize safety.

In a different way, the same need to obtain aid from our NATO allies re: learning about AIP replenishment. Some of our NATO allies have been replenishing AIP reactant on their submarines for decades, and a lot can be learned by the RCN from that. RCN personnel and/or contractors could be sent to Europe (assuming allies agreement) soon, to monitor/participate in such, so to augment any TKMS conducted training. The intent being to maximize knowledge and training.

These things should be planned long in advance, and not left to a last minute post procurement scramble after the submarines are delivered. Last minute scramble activities are typically much more expensive, and typically are far less safe.

I fear though, the elephant in the room. The negative impact of the RCN personnel shortage should not be underestimated, and this shortage could make many different ideas, difficult to impossible to implement.

... by the way - GREAT HMCS Shawinigan image. Nice !!!

 

[Stoker]

There are quite a few big AUV's in use today with the multibeam and other sensors. Most I suspect have not been adapted to look upwards. You need one that can scan 360degrees in the above, below and sideways , along with scanning in a cone forward and have enough AI to penetrate under the ice, map and then return to open water.

There are and some Canadian companies like Kraken could probably develop something along the lines of what we want. We should be investing in this company in that regard.

 

[Stoker]

All this talking about the Arctic, ice and future submarines in the Arctic got me to thinking about my involvement in Northern Watch in 2015.

Northern Watch formally began in 2007 as a Defence Research and Development Canada technology (DRDC) demonstration project. Its objective was to develop and test a permanent, remotely operated surveillance system capable of monitoring aircraft, surface vessels and underwater activity at a strategic Arctic chokepoint much like what the Canadian Patrol Submarine will be monitoring. Gascoyne Inlet on Devon Island was selected because of its position overlooking Barrow Strait and the eastern Northwest Passage.

During the 2008–2013 period, DRDC established the camp and tested different sensors, communications systems and underwater equipment. Arctic conditions proved more difficult than originally anticipated, resulting in delays, redesign work and additional cost. By 2012, underwater acoustic experiments were being conducted in Barrow Strait, and Northern Watch activities continued at Gascoyne through 2012 and 2013.

The project culminated in its major 2015 system demonstration. Earlier that year, DRDC assembled and tested the complete Northern Watch surveillance system at the Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Ranges before moving it north. The final Arctic demonstration then ran from approximately late July through mid September 2015 at Gascoyne Inlet.

This was the period in which HMCS Shawinigan supported Northern Watch. I was Shawinigan's Chief Engineer during that deployment. Our involvement included transporting equipment and payloads to Gascoyne Inlet, returning equipment south, assisting with the deployment and recovery of sonar equipment from the seabed, and operating Shawinigan as a known target vessel against which the surveillance system could be evaluated. Our crew was also given tours and briefings on the research being conducted at the facility. Pretty interesting stuff.

The work continued after Northern Watch under follow on research programs. In 2017, DRDC conducted the Canadian Arctic Underwater Sentinel Experiment, or CAUSE, at the same Gascoyne Inlet facility from 24 July to 21 August 2017.

Gascoyne Inlet has remained an Arctic defence research site since then. The important distinction is that the original Northern Watch project ran from 2007 through its final demonstration in 2015, while the site, infrastructure, underwater-surveillance research and related Arctic defence work continued afterward under subsequent programs.

That experience is increasingly relevant to Canada's future submarines. A submarine capable of operating in the Canadian Arctic will be much more effective when integrated with fixed seabed sensors, remote surveillance sites, satellites, aircraft, surface ships and autonomous systems. Northern Watch was an early practical demonstration of exactly that kind of networked Arctic surveillance concept.

We were there several times during the deployment and got to go ashore and enjoy a banyan and their WiFi. Here's a few pictures. Notice the bleak conditions and the change of weather. We also got to go ashore at Beechy Island and pay or respects to the Franklin Expedition gravesites, a very cool experience.

 

[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?

Clearly most of the above is massive speculation by me - so please treat it as such : speculation.

Still - even in these early days, I was curious as to how the Canadian Patrol Submarine's sonar kit might compare to the existing Victoria Class. Of course given there is no contract signed yet with the preferred supplier TKMS, and given we don't know what the Type-212CD will fully have yet for sonars, this will end up being highly speculative by me. Emphasis on 'speculative'.

Also, rather than list the RCN Victoria class equipment, I thought just to note, in general its sonar is mostly the same as the RN decommissioned Upholder class (and other older RN decommissioned conventional submarines and decommissioned SSNs) with though one important related sonar system-wide update (AN/BQQ-10).

What I have below is from open internet sources. Given that, it also means some of this could be inaccurate, so add that possibility to the speculation.

My understanding is that the RCN did update the Victoria class from the original Upholder class with the AN/BQQ-10. As part of this modernization, the old Type 2041 MicroPUFFS passive-ranging sonar hardware was replaced/upgraded, the Type 2040 bow sonar was upgraded, and a high-frequency active sonar capability was introduced. The AN/BQQ-10 also provides modern processing for the submarine's passive sonar arrays and integrated processing of the towed array.

Another internet description stated that the BQQ-10 provided three broad capabilities: passive-array processing, active intercept/ranging, and high-frequency active sonar, including integrated towed-array processing.

The Victoria class also has the CANTASS passive towed-array capability. This is primarily a long-range passive surveillance sensor.

Comparison (very very speculative)

In comparison as to what might be expected on the RCN Canadian Patrol Submarine, if TKMS selected, I note the Type-212CD wiki claims:

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

I don't believe the Victoria Class has any equivalent equipment to mine avoidance (other than limited capability from the BQQ-10 upgrades), and it reads that the Type-212CD will have more dedicated and potentially more advanced seabed navigation. I don't know enough to knowledgeably compare the echo-sounding capability of the EA640 echo sounder with the echo-sounding capability that was part of the Victoria Class Type-2040 sonar, but I speculate the single-beam EA640 is at least equal, if not superior, for echo-sounding functions.

Other items of note, if my very very speculative thought of Atlas Elektronik large-aperture flank array (successor to 212A's FAS 3-1) being chosen for Type-212CD, I suspect it would likely be superior to the Victoria Class flank array piece of kit.

As for Towed array sonar, while I speculated the Type-212CD might go for the 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 also suspect there may be a temptation for RCN to specify to go Canadian (or TKMS to choose Canadian for offsets) speculatively choosing a CANTAS towed array variant instead of Atlas Elektronic ACTAS.

I did not speculate on the type of intercept sonar the TKMS Type-212CD may have. Why? This vastly exceeds my limited research on this topic.

Again, there is massive speculation in the above. Speculation.

I think though, in every sonar category, the current Canadian Patrol submarine preferred supplier's Type-212CD, will likely have a superior sonar to what is fitted on the Victoria class. Which, if correct, is good, its long over due, and its welcome news for the RCN.

 

[oldcpu]

First let me apologize for this following post , as I am trying to move away from potential Arctic operations of the future Canadian patrol submarine, as I think some are seriously bored by such.

But I stumbled across a 12 September 2007, Vol. 10, No. 26 of the Maple Leaf, which describes HMCS Corner Brook going into the Canadian Arctic in the month of August (which I note like September, is a favourable time of the year for Arctic transit).

I researched it a bit more, and this is what I learned:

In August 2007, the Victoria-class submarine HMCS Corner Brook participated in Operation NANOOK 07, the inaugural iteration of Canada's annual northern sovereignty operation. Conducted from 7 to 17 August in and around Iqaluit, the Baffin Island coastal waters and Hudson Strait, the operation was designed to strengthen Canada's ability to assert sovereignty in the North. The naval component included the frigate HMCS Fredericton, the coastal defence vessel HMCS Summerside and Corner Brook. Fredericton and Summerside conducted boarding exercises and anti-submarine serials involving the submarine.

Corner Brook's deployment was the first deployment of a Victoria-class submarine to Canadian northern waters. The submarine's commanding officer reported that the boat's equipment and sensors performed well in the cold northern environment, and that the exercise provided an opportunity for the submarine to develop procedures and methods that future submarine deployments would build on. The 24-day deployment also provided additional training opportunities for the crew and embarked trainees.

Operating in northern waters presented the submarine with hazards associated with the Arctic environment. Contemporary accounts note that Corner Brook's control-room watchkeepers had to remain particularly vigilant for small pieces of floating ice, including bergy bits and growlers. Icebergs were also detectable by the submarine's sonar. These observations demonstrate that the deployment was not conducted in an entirely ice-free environment; rather, the submarine operated in the eastern Arctic while managing the navigation and ice hazards encountered there.

There is no publicly available evidence I have found that establishes precisely what proportion of the deployment was spent surfaced, snorkeling, or submerged, nor how extensively the submarine relied on diesel propulsion during its transit, nor whether it ever operated beneath sea ice. I believe it is reasonable to infer that Corner Brook did not conduct any under-ice operations, particularly given the Victoria class does not possess an under-ice capability. I believe the absence of any publicly documented under-ice modifications nor any explicit record of an under-ice transit should be treated as supporting evidence for that inference that the submarine never operated beneath sea ice.

Again - I thought that relevant to earlier discussions - Unfortunately, I have not discovered any more on the above than what I summarized. And apologies to all if this is still boring.