TKMS Type 212CD (Victoria class replacement megathread)

[Underway]

I had that discussion last night - I pointed out that the only reason our budget rose in the recent past was because the orange dude called everyone out, and when things don't look so orange outside, there will be far less impetus to appease, and far less money thrown at looking to solve problems.

Someone mentioned being concerned about whether or not we get 15 RCDs....I don't know if we've ordered any of the long-lead items yet beyond the first 3. (Gearboxes/etc)

That will be a real indicator in my opinion.

I learned today its highly likely that we order the next 6 RCD long lead items very soon. I think it was early Jan but can't remember the exact time. It do remember thinking "wow, that's soon".

 

[Underway]

I was just being pessimistic sadly.
There is just such a long long track record of us buying the absolute bare minimum in just about everything we do. I badly want us to break/destroy this old mantra.
I love the AOPS’s and was lucky enough to tour HMCS MB last year Oct while she was in Windsor, as I was, over Thanksgiving. I think they are wonderful ships. Again was I just being pessimistic on what the Politicians would do to her the others if funding got cut back. Transfer her over the the CCG and strike 6 of the new med icebreakers from the buy side of things.

I’m glad to hear that the ‘buy side’ of things on the Rivers has moved a bit beyond the initial 3. Hopefully this expands and broadens out quite extensively.

Its fair. Evidence will be in the future, however, the US will never go back to where it was. There is a chance the Reps regain the Whitehouse with a different cast of players and be more subtle and smarter in pushing our buttons. The Dems aren't getting rid of tarriffs, they might change them somewhat but they are here to stay in some form. Things have permanently changed since the post cold war order.

As much as I think we look too previous Canadian defence spending and not be confident our own current spending won't continue there is something else that we are forgeting.

Since confederation Canada as a whole harbours a deep dislike and distrust of the US. Can't be too American or you lose elections (see Harper). And that my friends is why defence will be top of mind to the government for well after this current administration is gone. Because the US has shown they can switch their minds on a dime.

Wasn't it the Germans who said "We will never f**king trust you again." at at defence conference in Halifax?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Wasn't it the Germans who said "We will never f**king trust you again." at at defence conference in Halifax?

I think it was the British Chief of the Defence Staff Admiral Sir Tony Radakin.

 

[lenaitch]

We struggled to keep 4 in various operational states and it gutted the surface fleet funding to even do that, even 8 will be a huge challenge requiring a lot of infra for training, repairs and another 1000 odd techs, engineers and other support people ashore. The nice part is if we just buy them more or less unchanged (maybe use 60 hz internal power vice 50 hz) then we can leverage the German and Norwegian navies for pooled engineering resources on the supportability and upgrade side.

I know nothing of the industry but am surprised that they wouldn't use high frequency AC like large commercial aircraft (generally 400Hz) to save space and weight.

 

[Underway]

I think it was the British Chief of the Defence Staff Admiral Sir Tony Radakin.

That does sound more British then German... lol.

 

[oldcpu]

Wasn't it the Germans who said "We will never f**king trust you again." at at defence conference in Halifax?

I think it was the British Chief of the Defence Staff Admiral Sir Tony Radakin.

Thanks. I had not heard of this before (my being 1/2 way around the world my feeble excuse). I went looking but given Chatham Rules in place for the occasion when such was purportedly stated, not much can be found.

I note this the agenda for that 2025 International security conference: https://halifaxtheforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Agenda2025.pdf

I speculate (speculate is the operative word) that it was this 22-Nov-2025 dinner session:

Just Another Country: America Surrenders its Moral Authority, with two speakers:
- Mr. Mark Hetfield, President, HIAS, United States;
- Mr. Ali Nazary, Head of Foreign Relations, National Resistance Front of Afghanistan, Afghanistan;
... and the moderator (host) Ms. Heather Hurlburt, Associate Fellow, Chatham House, United States.

I note Matt Gurney posts on the noted comment about 'trust' here : Matt Gurney: 'We will never fucking trust you again'

I also don't see British CDS Sir Tony Radakin on the participant list on the Internet, but frankly that list is quite possibly very inaccurate.

US mid-terms are over. Democrats obtained a majority in House & Senate, but not a 2/3 majority in both (where 2/3 majority needed to legally ignore a POTUS veto). So if POTUS vetoes Congress, the Congress can in reply reign in the US executive branch by withholding funds - possibly causing a government shutdown if there is major disagreement. That is a very extreme measure, and will that cause a USA policy change? I am skeptical.

Anyway, back to Victoria class - I don't see much of a change in US policy in the next 2 years (despite mid-term results) , but next presidential election with results in just over 2 years time, could see a US administration whose more benign policies , could lead to the Canadian Government in reconsidering how many Canadian Patrol Submarines to order - and I fear the Canadian Government could reduce the order.

My hope is at least 12 are ordered , in order to provide sovereignty presence in the Arctic, in addition to the Atlantic and Pacific. I don't want to restart the Arctic discussion here , but I still believe sustained Canadian Patrol Submarine presence in the Arctic is NOT POSSIBLE unless a way is found to replenish, while in the Arctic, the AIP reactants of such a submarine.

My hope is the procurement of 12 proceeds. There are massive challenges ahead there for the RCN.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Noah's recent commentary on the Murray Brewster story on the 8+4 sub story is worth a read. He's saying that in essence Canadian industry was specifically lead to believe and plan that 12 subs would be coming. He's saying that although the stated policy was 'up to 12 subs', that our industry was specifically encouraged to base their plans/funding/timelines off of 12 subs being purchased. He also says that its more than likely that if the overall number was going to be 8 all along that a number of them would NOT have gotten involved in the contract at all and that some might even consider walking away from the project if only 8 subs was the final number.....

I'm not able to post the links to his story at the moment.

 

[Rainbow1910]

Noah's recent commentary on the Murray Brewster story on the 8+4 sub story is worth a read. He's saying that in essence Canadian industry was specifically lead to believe and plan that 12 subs would be coming. He's saying that although the stated policy was 'up to 12 subs', that our industry was specifically encouraged to basis their plans/funding/timelines off of 12 subs being purchased. He also says that its more than likely that if the overall number was going to be 8 all along that a number of them would NOT have gotten involved in the contract at all and that some might even consider walking away from the project if only 8 subs was the final number.....

I'm not able to post the links to his story at the moment.

If this is true, it's a pretty disastrous and short sighted turn of events. A substantial part of the pitch for this submarine program was the associated industry support, workshare and offsets which would help stomach the high unit costs. By doing this, you are jeopardizing the aforementioned advantages and potentially rising the unit/program cost by introducing uncertainty into the procurement itself.

It also makes the Government look incredibly untrustworthy, they'd done so much work to repair our very poor reputation on procurement and this is flushing it all down the toilet again.

A terrible omen of what is to come if true and a generational fumble.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Noah's recent commentary on the Murray Brewster story on the 8+4 sub story is worth a read. He's saying that in essence Canadian industry was specifically lead to believe and plan that 12 subs would be coming. He's saying that although the stated policy was 'up to 12 subs', that our industry was specifically encouraged to basis their plans/funding/timelines off of 12 subs being purchased. He also says that its more than likely that if the overall number was going to be 8 all along that a number of them would NOT have gotten involved in the contract at all and that some might even consider walking away from the project if only 8 subs was the final number.....

I'm not able to post the links to his story at the moment.

This is my outward reaction:

This is me trying to hold back my politically based comments:

 

[Czech_pivo]

If this is true, it's a pretty disastrous and short sighted turn of events. A substantial part of the pitch for this submarine program was the associated industry support, workshare and offsets which would help stomach the high unit costs. By doing this, you are jeopardizing the aforementioned advantages and potentially rising the unit/program cost by introducing uncertainty into the procurement itself.

It also makes the Government look incredibly untrustworthy, they'd done so much work to repair our very poor reputation on procurement and this is flushing it all down the toilet again.

A terrible omen of what is to come if true and a generational fumble.

I'm wondering if the story that Mr Brewster was told is along the same lines of the one that came out in the May/June timeline saying that we were looking at splitting the sub contract between both Hanwha and TKMS, ordering 6 of each......a story that we fairly quickly squashed.

 

[YZT580]

Noah's recent commentary on the Murray Brewster story on the 8+4 sub story is worth a read. He's saying that in essence Canadian industry was specifically lead to believe and plan that 12 subs would be coming. He's saying that although the stated policy was 'up to 12 subs', that our industry was specifically encouraged to base their plans/funding/timelines off of 12 subs being purchased. He also says that its more than likely that if the overall number was going to be 8 all along that a number of them would NOT have gotten involved in the contract at all and that some might even consider walking away from the project if only 8 subs was the final number.....

I'm not able to post the links to his story at the moment.

Can't say it would surprise me. Carney is, after all, a liberal. You won't see a pipeline in the near future either.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Can't say it would surprise me. Carney is, after all, a liberal. You won't see a pipeline in the near future either.

We'll see.
Time will tell.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Can't say it would surprise me. Carney is, after all, a liberal. You won't see a pipeline in the near future either.

I think we're going to see a bunch of stuff start to fall back... And the debt announced today will be eye watering.

 

[GR66]

I know there is lots of justified cynicism on these forums, but should we automatically assume that the plan for 8 x subs up front and an option for another 4 means we will only get the original 8? How were the NSS contracts worded with regard to ordering the River-Class for example? Our F-35 order sounds like it was always going to be in batches, etc.