With its trouble prone Victoria-class submarines expected to retire in the mid to late 2030s Canada is seeking from 8 to 12 new (foreign?) build replacements quite quickly to patrol Canada's 3 oceans (Pacific, Arctic and Atlantic). For this Canada appears prepared to eventually pay up to 60 billion Canadian dollars (about US$43.5 Billion).
Set out below note the following 15 draft high-level mandatory requirements "Patrol Submarine Project – Request for Information | Solicitation ID W8481-23PPS | RFI – Annex A – Draft HLMRs (Report). Government of Canada. June 12 2023, [5] recorded here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Patrol_Submarine#Background :
- "The platform shall be a submarine that can perform patrol and surveillance missions in Canada’s maritime approaches and littoral waters.
- The platform shall be conventionally powered (diesel-electric).
- The platform shall have an operational range of at least 7,000 nautical miles (13,000 km; 8,100 mi) on diesel fuel at 8 knots.
- The platform shall be able to transit at least 3,000 nautical miles (5,600 km; 3,500 mi) submerged on batteries/AIP before snorting.
- The platform shall be able to operate in first-year Arctic ice (up to 1 m thick) and survive in polar-class cold-weather conditions.
- The platform shall have a low acoustic signature consistent with modern SSK design standards (radiated noise ≤ 110 dB/1 µPa/√Hz re 1 Hz at 1 kHz).
- The platform shall be fitted with a bow sonar array, flank arrays, and a towed array sonar.
- The platform shall have at least six 533 mm torpedo tubes and be able to store and launch torpedoes, missiles, mines and UUVs. [Note no requirement for VLS]
- The platform shall provide secure VLF/HF/UHF and SATCOM communications with Canadian and allied networks.
- The platform shall be fully interoperable with NATO and Five-Eyes submarine rescue and C4ISR standards.
- The platform shall meet survivability criteria for shock, fire, flooding and chemical-biological-radiological threats.
- The platform shall accommodate a mixed-gender crew of at least 60 personnel for deployments up to 60 days without resupply.
- The platform shall be designed for through-life support in Canada, including training simulators and Canadian-sourced spare parts.
- The platform shall deliver minimum 25 % Canadian content by value over the total programme life.
- The platform shall be certified to Transport Canada/RMRS safety rules and be upgradeable through at least two mid-life modernisations."
Pete Comment/Background
On August 26, 2025 Canada shortlisted Germany's TKMS Type 212CD (Common Design) and South Korea's Hanwha Ocean's KSS-III to develop paper designs by 2028 that are variants of operating subs for what is called the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP).
Notwithstanding KSS-IIIs for the South Korean Navy featuring vertical launch systems (VLS) there appears no VLS (in the above requirements) for Canada's future submarines. In fact Canada's Victoria-class do not carry Harpoon missiles (see right sidebar) let alone Tomahawks. South Korea offered India a "DSME-3000" KSS-III variant without VLS.
So the KSS-III's proven VLS capability may be no advantage in the Canadian competition. Canada may perhaps buy 6 non-VLS KSS-IIIs initially. This may be followed eventually by 6 South Korean built nuclear powered submarines, excellent for under-ice work, bears consideration. The cost of nuclear powered submarines and quicker build factor may not be prohibitive (for Canadian and Australian customers) if South Korea builds them. Australia might also get around the looming 20-25 years non-delivery of AUKUS SSNs crisis.
Hi Pete,
ReplyDeleteThe CPC requirements are interesting, as they lean towards the Hanwha Ocean KSS-III, which is more of an 'Oceanic patrol submarine', and the current KSS-III batch-1 boats already meet the range requirements.
The requirement for 60 crew is unusual, as most modern Western SSKs now operate with 30-50 crew (70 on the Taigei class), so 'adding' 10 more will include additional hotel services, or reducing weapons systems. The modular nature of modern submarine construction should make this straightforward.
The TKMS Type 212CD offering has to be significantly enlarged to meet the range/crew/endurance requirements.
Now I will harp on about my favourite new topic - Japanese ships and submarines for Australia.
Navalnews has reported that the current Japanese cabinet has just approved a $5.4 billion defense spending supplement that includes funding for: 2 Mogami-class frigates, 2 upgraded Mogami-class, and four Taigei-class Submarines.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/11/japan-greenlights-major-defense-supplement-to-accelerate-frigate-and-submarine-construction/
The Australian government is about to open discussions with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries on Australia's upgraded Mogami program - and I'm quite certain that Japanese moves to integrate these boats for ESSM, NSM and Mk-41 VLS, will simplify matters.
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/indo-pacific-2025/2025/11/upgraded-mogami-at-indo-pacific-non-zero-change-shipbuilder-makes-move/
The Taige-class is in now in full production, and the recent funding supplement should mean that all 8 boats are completed by 2029, so Australia could place an order in 2026 and get four boats by 2032, likely faster if Japan accelerated the current 2-year construction rate.
Hi Shawn at 12/01/2025 8:59 PM
ReplyDeleteYes the Collins like crew number of 60, Canada envisages, will involve considerable changes to the two competitors' designs. The KSS-III's removal of 6 x VLS would involve more heavyweight shots - equivalent to 22 torpedoes(s) in the torpedo room. Also more expanded bunk, eating and toilet shower facilities - much more food to last 60 days. The Type 212CD C (for Canadian) would need to incorporate all the upgrades above - though no VLS to remove.
I'm not across frigate issues other than to say Australia will experience many delays and cost over-runs shifting in some ways from the problematic low VLS Hunter-class to the Mogami-class. While earmarking much of the frigate budget to the AUKUS sub project.
Australia should have gone with the US's high VLS and interoperable Arleigh Burke offer decades ago.
I'm not convinced that Japan aims to double Taigei production to 2 per year. KHI and MHI have an ultra fine tuned, conservative, manpower and supply chain tradition emphasising one new sub per year, that goes all the way back to the Asashio-class in 1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asashio-class_submarine .
This means KHI builds half a sub per year and MHI builds the other half which they alternately launch from their almost co-located Kobe shipyards year on year.
Another possibility is Japan may not retire its subs at the rapid rate of one every 20 years or so. This longer retention (than a sub only operational for 20 years) would effectively grow Japan's submarine fleet to meet the increasing China, Russia, NK and even SK threats.
Cheers Pete
From what I have been advised, the actual draft HLMR in the RFI read different from that posted in this article. Perhaps this article reflects an earlier draft. Another forum noted from RFI the HLMR for crew size reads:
ReplyDeleteHLMR #7 – Crew Size
Ability to minimize crew size using automation and remote monitoring.
Explanation: The CPS must be able to be operated with a core crew of no more than 40 personnel. In addition, the submarine must be able to accommodate 8 additional personnel (riders) in permanent bunks.
Reference the statement, "So the KSS-III's proven VLS capability may be no advantage in the Canadian competition". Perhaps not as a VLS per-se, but the VLS does help meet two RFI HLMR:
ReplyDelete---
HLMR #4 – Lethality
Ability to perform precision attacks to include the use of the following weapons systems: heavy weight torpedoes, anti-ship missiles and long-range precision land attack missiles.
Explanation: The CPS must be capable of detecting, targeting, engaging, and destroying threats, both at sea (surface and subsurface) and ashore. To achieve this, the CPS must be capable of carrying and employing an appropriate combination of sensors and weapons to detect and deter maritime threats, control Canada’s maritime approaches, and hold distant adversaries at risk with the capability to project power ashore.
--- --- ---
My comment: The KSS-III VLS allows firing of both South Korean ballistic missile (500-to-1000km range) and South Korean cruise missile (1000-to-1500km). Currently the 533mm torpedo tubes in either submarine (KSS-III nor Type-212CD) have a ready available cruise missile to implement given (1) European torpedo launch cruise missile is still under development, and (2) USN stopped production of previous Tomahawk Torpedo Launched cruise missile variant and newer Tomahawk variant not yet available. USN likely has currently inventory of older variant assigned exclusively to themselves (until new variant production online). Hence VLS does offer something.
In addition :
HLMR #11 – Extended Operational Effectiveness
Ability to deploy and recover off-board crewed and uncrewed systems to extend the sensor reach and deliver effect to the underwater battlespace.
Explanation: As a “system of systems,” modern submarines are equipped to employ and support crewed and uncrewed vehicles, in addition to other armaments and intelligence gathering capabilities – making submarines a true force multiplier. The CPS must be capable of contributing to seabed warfare.
--- --- ---
My comment: While I speculate the sail/fin in either submarine would be used for some crewed/uncrewed vehicle, the KSS-III does have the additional stowage possibility of its VLS for very small vehicles.
Hi Anonymous at 12/02/2025 8:52 PM and 12/02/2025 9:03 PM
ReplyDeleteSo with high-level mandatory requirements being (HLMRs)
Yes the HLMRs are sure to vary in wording and length as technologies and strategic perceptions change over time. As a non-specialist on Canadian submarine matters I relied on the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Patrol_Submarine#Background which may have been accurate in June 2023.
So my comments in [ brackets ] on your comments:
HLMR #7 – Crew Size [The Europeans, like TKMS, indeed quote sizes in the 30s and 40s as standard. Fewer "watches". For Canada mission length and crew availability could of course lead to variance. "Riders" might be special forces or Chinese, Russian and Spanish/Portuguese (for Latin American anti-drug missions) linguists and intelligence specialists. Automation may well improve over time - especially in the command centre and torpedo room. ]
"Perhaps not as a VLS per-se, but the VLS does help meet two RFI HLMR"
[ Yes especially if the VLS is a Vertical Multi-Purpose Lock which could take special forces stores, diver delivery vehicle, an XLUUV and of course missiles of various sizes. ]
HLMR #4 – Lethality [ I agree. ]
[ True on SLBMs, Tomahawks and emerging European SLCMs. Also noting the future Israeli 212CD variant, the "Dolphin 3"/Dakar-class has an extended sail thought capable of vertically launching Israel's suspected nuclear tipped SLCMs and SLBMs see my https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2022/02/israels-dolphin-3-dakars-to-have-type.html - some info from Oleg--- probably an Israeli working for TKMS ]
HLMR #11 – [Yes Canada has its own XLUUV project (and likely diver delivery vehicles - with launch from submarine a good option. ]
[seabed warfare especially against Chinese and Russian communication and energy cables a growing objective for subs.]
Cheers Pete