At
the moment South Korea, in the shape of Hanwha Ocean (was DSME) appears to be the
most determined contender for the long term (15-20 years) Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP).
In
late 2023 Hanwha signed MoUs with four Canadian companies (CAE, J-Squared
Technologies, Modest Tree and Des Nedhe) https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/11/hanwha-ocean-signed-mou-with-four-canadian-firms-for-patrol-submarine-project/
Earlier, in June 2023, Hanwha Ocean signed a Technical Cooperation Agreement with (project advisory and designer?) Babcock Canada aimed at the CPSP. https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/madex-2023/2023/06/babcock-and-hanwha-ocean-sign-a-technical-cooperation-agreement-for-the-canadian-patrol-submarine-project/
Canada, over the next 15-25 years is seeking, likely with reference to the following requirements:
- between 6 and 12 submarines (probably the RCN submarine service would prefer 12). Four subs is far too few for Canada's 3 Ocean (Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic) Navy.
- buying new, not secondhand
- that are foreign built (to contain costs and reduce project risk and reduce cost and to meet deadlines (eg. avoiding the build locally Australian habit).
- of existing design, preferably already at sea or under imminent completion. Some minimal alterations might be acceptable as no sub is chosen off-the-shelf. Existing design minimizes technical risk and avoids all of the spares shortages, upgrade problems and other downsides of operating an orphan submarine chosen at a concept submarine stage. Canada is very mindful of Australian downsides eg. that produced the orphan Collins-class and almost led to the orphan Attack-class.
- large (probably 3,000 tonnes (surfaced) at a minimum).
- for oceanic long range, long endurance, probably with 50+ crew
- also large to desirably be able to rise through 1 to 2m of ice to permit (battery recharging and 2-way communications) operations as far north as possible. See genuine importance of rising through ice at Timothy Choi's and Chris Spedding's long joint papers at https://basicint.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/22_66_BASIC_Canadian-Submarine-Recapitalization-within-the-context-of-Climate-Change-report_03.pdf and https://www.navalassoc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Starshell-March-2023-LR.pdf
- diesel-electric (the US clearly did not apply AUKUS Pillar 1 (SSN) reasoning to Canada or Canada didn't want to pay a whole-of-life $Half Trillion for an 8 x SSN Project),
- proven already at sea AIP (no promised immature new technology AIP). This may exclude France's and Spain's new technology not-yet-at-sea AIP systems.
- if no AIP then Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) might be considered. But any significant LIBs caused fires on subs in the 2020s may rapidly exclude LIBs from consideration.
- SSNs are not an option. The US and UK significantly did not invite Canada to the AUKUS Pillar 1 (SSN) Arrangement and the US has a long history of opposing SSNs for Canada
I think there may be three decent contenders for the CPSP that I'll write about next week. Can you guess which 3 subs?
Sweden A26
ReplyDeleteGermany 212CD
SK KSS-III
ambitious project for Canada but I dont think theres 10-15 yrs left in the Victorias. There wont be more than 6 either
Hi suffolkowner at 11/25/2023 8:24 AM
ReplyDeleteThanks for your 3 choices.
I'll hold back my views on them till others place their bets.
Yes to "I dont think theres 10-15 yrs left in the Victorias".
Despite huge Canadian efforts to overhaul the Victorias, they still retain some of the rust/corrosion/some old electricals from their original launch years, 1986-92, as Upholders. After those launches, they spent years, moored in saltwater, not being mothballed well, by the Brits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upholder/Victoria-class_submarine#Submarines_in_class
Re: "There wont be more than 6 either." Yes, reduction to the magic number 6 also occured with Australia's eventual 6 Oberons and 6 Collins, even though the RAN put in bids for higher numbers of those 2 classes.
In fact the 8 SSNs our government is planning may well shrink to:
- 6 Virginias (not in the 2030s but the 2040s)
OR
- 6 SSN-AUKUS
as costs and high crew manning requirements mount up.
Regards Pete
Type 212CD or DSME KSS-3 as primary options
ReplyDeleteA26 Blekinge as secondary choice or
an upgraded version of Scorpene as the less likely tertiary options.
The Canadians should not worry about outer EEZ operations and leave that to the US SSNs and SSGNs. The type 212 or daewoo option is likely to be more than adequate for pelagic patrols.
Going for foreign built non-nuclear subs is a bit disappointing. I understand wanting to avoid cost overruns and delays. However Canada, unlike many other countries, has the luxury of a relatively safe neighborhood and the protection of being right next door to the US. It could afford to suffer some delays to build long term capabilities.
ReplyDeleteCanada has significant industrial capabilities and should be more than capable of building submarines domestically with a foreign partner and absorbing the technical know-how.
Canada is also one of the only countries with a genuine domestic nuclear industry. The CANDU reactor, which was designed by Canadian nuclear engineers in the 1950s and 1960s, has been one of the best designs to date and is in operation in many countries. Of course, SSNs use PWRs which is a different technology. However, Canada's present nuclear capabilities and infrastructure should make operating SSNs easier.
Canada has similar industrial capabilities and better nuclear capabilities than a country like Brazil. If Brazil is able to build SSKs and SSNs domestically with French assistance then there is no reason that Canada could not as well.
Assuming Canada does go for diesel subs, I think the recent Dutch navy tender is a better guide to likely contenders, since that also focused on long range and endurance. So my bets are:
ReplyDeleteSAAB C718 “Expeditionary” as opposed to smaller A26
South Korean KSS III
TKM Type 218SG or similar
France would be the next possibility, and may be advantaged by Canada being bilingual. However their lack of a large AIP option in the water makes me think the Swedish, South Korean and German options are the favourites.
In the mid 30s will decide the question of the submarines "Dakar" 2-serie. The submarines can be equipped with a nuclear reactor, that it seems logical and there are some subtle hints... And they're very similar to the type 212 CD E (NL) TKMS. Other countries (Canada) could accede in the future, have technical competency. By the way, patent of Low-Enriched Uranium (and heavy water) the French received it from Israel. Regards...
ReplyDeleteHi GhalibKabir at 11/25/2023 10:58 PM
ReplyDeleteI agree with your choices of the Type 212CD - perhaps with an extra section for extra crew on an upper deck and extra diesel fuel and extra AIP chemicals for longer range.
Agree with Hanwha Ocean's (was DSME) KSS-3.
Canada prefers long range oceanic capabilities - which is why, even in the 1990s it aimed at larger subs than the 2000 tonnes or less Eurosubs. One reason why the Upholder-Victorias were chosen.
An important mission for Canada is surveillance of drug smuggling 1,000s kms away in South-Central America. So long transits, and then a long mission (like Australian sub range requirements) is needed.
The A26 Blekinge at 2,000 tonnes (surfaced) would be smaller than Canada wants.
But if Saab wins the Netherland's Walrus replacement competition and promptly builds the winning C718 Expeditionary sub design (which may be near 3,000 tonnes surfaced) and if it has AIP then it could be a serious contender for Canada. https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2023/08/australia-would-benefit-from-dutch-ssk.html
An "upgraded version of Scorpene" would be a long shot. It would need to be radically larger than the current (even Brazillian model) Scorpene. Possibly the biggest hurdle is France never having developed a mature 2nd/3rd Generation AIP (something France has been unable to operate AT SEA). Countries can claim their AIP is "fine" (when land tested). But a proven, efficient and safe AIP performance at sea would be essential for Canada in the "under ice" mission.
Regards Pete
Hi Anonymous at 11/26/2023 12:59 AM
ReplyDeleteIt is the fact of Canada's close geographical proximity to its (in every way dominant) superpower USA that has killed off Canada's SSN hopes in the past.
In the 1980s Canada was seriously considering buying or maybe building French, UK or US designed "Canada-class" SSNs. Only nuclear power permits long and Safe operation under ice. But then there was cost and mainly US opposition considerations. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-class_submarine#American_opposition
"The United States objected to the RCN having SSNs as part of its fleet, fearing a significant impact to its own submarine operations in North American waters and possible conflict over access to the Northwest Passage.
In order to prevent this, the United States exercised its rights under two previously signed treaties. Under the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement, the US had the right to block the sale of submarine nuclear reactors by the United Kingdom to any third party (i.e. Canada), and under a 1959 agreement between the US and Canada the US had the right to block the purchase of submarine nuclear reactors by Canada from any third party (i.e. the United Kingdom or France).[24]
Attempts to negotiate with the United States were initially unsuccessful, as Canadian Defence Minister Perrin Beatty was "told in no uncertain terms by the U.S. Defense Department and submarine service officials that a Canadian nuclear submarine program was unnecessary and even unwelcome."[25]"
From what I've read Canada does not want to repeat the Australian high risk, higher cost (to buy votes and unions) gambit of trying to build subs domestically.
Even France and the UK, with established civilian nuclear reactoes and nuclear weapons industrial bases, have found it extremely difficult and expensive to built decent submarine reactors. So the UK continues to rely on transferred US reactor technology. France (arguably) builds less than optimal submarine LEU (with dual use cost savings) reactors due to the much higher cost of building and inventing better HEU reactors.
Regards Pete
Hi Anonymous at 11/26/2023 2:02 PM
ReplyDelete"Assuming Canada does go for diesel subs" yes I think US opposition to Canada having SSNs will remain.
Yes I agree with "I think the recent Dutch navy tender is a better guide to likely contenders, since that also focused on long range and endurance."
If Canada wants to wait for the launch of the winner of the Dutch tender then
"SAAB C718 “Expeditionary”" may be the most mature design in that competition.
If France (Naval Group) won the Dutch competition then Canada (bilingual in French-English) might be a plus - but yes, lack of mature, modern AIP hurts France.
The TKMS Type 218SG "Invincible-class" is too small, at 2,000 tonnes surfaced but a couple of segments may increase crew, diesel fuel and more AIP chemicals for longer range/endurance including under ice. All growing it into a Type 216. See this interesting 218-216 design relationship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_216_submarine#Successor
Japan's final 2 two Soryus 27SS Oryu and 28SS Toryu (both having AIP and Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs)) may be under close study by the RCN. Also Japan's follow on 3,000 tonne surfaced Taigeis (no AIP but fully exploiting LIBs) might have acceptable extended fully submerged performance. see https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2022/10/taigeis-libs-with-more-powerful.html
Although Japan's military industrial base never having exported a major weapons system played against it in Australia's 2013-16 SEA1000 competition and may be a concern for Canada.
"South Korean KSS III" as it is large enough, already operating (including mature AIP) may be the best fit. Its VLS is probably also seen as a plus by Canada for launching ASMs (with other missile potential) and even for launching AUVs from VLS tubes.
Regards Pete
Hi Oleg7700 at 11/27/2023 1:50 AM
ReplyDeleteAre. So Israel's second tranche of 3 x Dakar ("2s") could conceivably be nuclear powered. Hence they might be SSGNs or even small SSBNs?
I assume they need not be full sized ie. not able to launch full sized Trident D5 SLBMs.
So "type 212 CD E (NL)" is Common Design Expeditionary Netherlands?
Regarding "By the way, patent of Low-Enriched Uranium (and heavy water) the French received it from Israel." So France received Israeli technology for uranium enrichment, up to LEU, using heavy water reactor technology?
This would presumably give Israel some leverage for France to transfer K15 LEU submarine reactor technology to Israel?
A problem is France would not want to assist, or even permit, its K15 (or more modern) submarine nuclear reactor technology to be integrated with GERMAN TKMS submarines. Age old Franco-German national security animosities, or even mere commercial competition, don't disappear.
But (in the spirit of Dimona and Jericho 1 missiles) if France took over as the main submarine supplier to Israel then a "Dakar 2" French designed SSGN (aka small SSBN "Baby Boomer") might be possible in the 2030s?
Thinking a bit ahead - if nuclear weapon proliferation followed the expected South Korea, then Japan, then Australia route, then US objections to a Canadian SSGN would be more difficult to sustain.
Regards Pete
Hi Pete
ReplyDeleteThe main emphasis is the E coast in my opinion
Esquimalt (Victoria) is in front of Bremerton (Wash.)..non US/unfriendly activities around is.. a "stretch"
Conversely the NW passage control assumes at the bare minimum the control of the exit/entrance in the Labrador /Baffin sea off W Groenland.This is about 2000/3000 nautical miles just ferrying back and forth from StJohn.St John is also about 1000 miles fron Groton (Conn.)so the added value in the East is real
However not a "pelagic" case..you do not need 6+ subs to control the shallow entrance of the Saint Lawrence around Newfoundland..
I would question the SSK (non nuclear ) choice .AIP does not change the situation, (is a source of complexity vs Li?)due to low speed in operation , (3/4 knots, 1800 miles max. in 3 weeks... with very strong permanent currents of a few knots in these area).Chasing ,surface or N submarine assets, in the 20/25 knots range in a 600/800 N miles large passage is a tough job
Hi Pete
ReplyDeleteTo Oleg
The French Israeli collaboration between 1953 and 1960 is essentially public and records known in great details by now from numerous sources
It was a one way street by and large..France did however purchase an israeli tech for U extraction from phosphates rocks and an improvment on the heavy water production in the ammonia process.Irrelevant to LEU (in fact heavy water as graphite allow Pu production from natural U W/O enrichment) which was piloted in Cadarache (PAT, "prototype à terre") in the mid 60;
France lost interest in HW 60 years ago with Pierrelatte enrichment facility coming on stream
LEU is the most economical/safe route to sub reactors as it "piggy back" onthe front end and back end of the civilian fuel cycle (economy , safety, disposal..) W/O tactical differences
China is following that route and would likely be followed by SK or Japan if needed which have robust PWR systems and fuel infra.
Without France... It is excluded! The big unanswered question is still-accommodation. They don't need an the Mediterranean or Eilat,(a beach resort5) they needs an Indian Ocean, but the game is worth the candle.
ReplyDeleteI think they would go with either NG attack class or MHI Taigei or Navantia's S80+ might be considered.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of US system integration readiness the Taigei would be in the lead with mk48 torpedoes already integrated while S80+ would not be far behind as it was designed in mind to fire mk48 and tomahawks. The integration may not be fully delivered yet but as the vessels designed in cooperation with General Dynamics Electric Boat and Lockheed Martin, the integration of US tech is not fatlr behind but also has more potential. They also have near-ice capability (im assuming this as the Norwegian Navy had interest in the boats)
Taigei's were designed to also counter Russian subs and as Japan being a near Arctic state, I assume Taigei's are the closest in service AIP SSKs with the most under ice capability.
Attack class subs are based off french SSN hulls which have proven to have a full under ice capability however its performance with an AIP under ice is not fully proven get. and were designed in mind to use US weapons and systems for the RAN. However if Canada doesn't mind accepting French or non-US weapon systems, then the HHI KSS-III can be considered.
It seems that India & Australia are working on an agreement to facilitate mid-air refueling of each other's air assets in the INDOPAC.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-australia-finalising-agreements-for-cooperation-in-hydrography-and-air-to-air-refuelling/article67554846.ece
Both countries operate tankers (A330 & Il-78MKI) equipped with drogue refueling kit so they should be broadly useful for assets like Rafale, Su-30MKI or Netra AEW aircraft (or RAAF's F/A-18s or EA-18Gs). The Australian A330s are also equipped with the boom refueling kit which can help extend the on-station time of Indian P-8Is in the region, but unfortunately the Indian Il-78MKIs cannot reciprocate as they do not have the flying boom kit. The IAF's plan to procure new tankers (possibly based on the Boeing 767 platform) is still in the pipeline.
Cheers
Hi Anonymous at 11/27/2023 8:36 PM
ReplyDeleteAs I'm not Canadian I don't know the particulars of Canada's complex sea-georgaphical challenges and strategic priorities.
I'm mainly aware that Canada has a huge coastline to defend and surveil. So very large long range/long endurance diesel-electric SSKs are required by Canada.
I did some reading yesterday which meant not only does an under-ice capability require long fully submerged endurance (achieved by AIP and/or Lithium-ion Batteries)
BUT the ability of a large Canadia SSK to BREAK THROUGH UP TO 2 METERS OF SURFACE ICE MAY BE A CPSP REQUIREMENT.
This is well covered by the research of Canadians Timothy Choi and Chris Spedding
here https://basicint.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/22_66_BASIC_Canadian-Submarine-Recapitalization-within-the-context-of-Climate-Change-report_03.pdf
and
here https://www.navalassoc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Starshell-March-2023-LR.pdf
They also, like yourself, go into geographical realities.
One reason there was interest in a Canada-class SSN, specifically the UK Trafalgar-class, was becausee its 4,700+ tonne surfaced displacement gave it the size to float up through 3 meters of surface ice. Very handy in emergencies, and to communicate to/from base. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafalgar-class_submarine
Canada's through ice considerations suggests that a Eurosub company offering a specifically large (But orphan) sub design is not what Canda wants to go for or pay extra for.
A mature large sub design already in use by another (parent) navy is what Canda is looking for.
Regards Pete
Thanks Anonymous at 11/28/2023 2:31 AM
ReplyDeleteI'll address most of the issues you have brought up in an Update 2: CPSP Article tomorrow.
Combat system integration is indeed important. Canada has used the Mark 48 right through the Oberons and now Victoria-class days. So it is likely that HWT and Tomahawk will be parts of a Lockheed Martin integrated Combat System.
Regards Pete
Hi Gessler at 11/28/2023 5:29 PM
ReplyDeleteThanks for bringing up the Indo-Ausralian mid-air refueling matter. This may build on India's use of Australia's Cocos and Christmas islands for P-8 MPA missions.
I imagine Singapore's air force, due to geographical position, and with its 6 x Airbus A330 MRTTs, mighht also get involved in a mid-air refueling alliance.
++++++++++++
"joint research in underwater technologies" and "subsurface domain awareness, and anti-submarine warfare" referred to at https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-australia-finalising-agreements-for-cooperation-in-hydrography-and-air-to-air-refuelling/article67554846.ece
looks like useful shorthand for fixed undersea sensor research and maybe deployments and mobile (AUV/XLUUV, submarine and hydrology ship) research.
Maybe XLUUVs may one do long range patrols to/from (say) North West Cape, Western Australia and along island chains to India's Port Blair base?!
Regards Pete
Arctic patrols arent going to be a priority due to the capability of diesel subs. The distance is just to great. If anything surveillance will be accomplished by autonomous systems launched from Harry DeWolf class. As far as ice thickness goes, it is not really a factor anymore with 90% of ice 1st season and less than a meter. Hoping for 6 subs with the fleet split in half between Esquimalt and Halifax
ReplyDelete