NOTE: The opinions and writings in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Canadian government or armed forces.
The Canadians have one of the longest and most inhospitable coast lines in the world, this makes policing the territory especially in the high arctic regions all the more difficult.
Recently the Canadian navy has decided to replace the twelve aging Halifax class Frigates with fifteen of the British Type 26 thus also replacing the already decommissioned Iroquois class destroyers.
 The type 26 for Canada will incorporate the new Aegis warfare system and the long cell MK41 VLS capable of firing the Standard missile, Tomahawk and LRASM when it becomes available.
  The will allow the Royal Canadian Navy the ability to operate much better with their southern neighbors navy and maintain a general purpose frigate in the fleet.
HMCS Victoria heading out to sea she will be replaced by the new submarine class
The Current Fleet
The Victoria class originally the British Upholder class were designed in the 1980’s and a planned batch of 12 boats were originally to replace the Oberon class.
With the end of the Cold War and substantial budget cuts only four boats were ever built the other eight being cancelled.
The four boats were quickly laid up due to aforementioned budget cuts and the decision for the Royal Navy to go all nuclear, the last boat HMS Unicorn paid off from Royal Navy service on October 16th 1994 after just 15 months in commission.
The upholders were first offered to the Pakistani Navy but were turned down and thus they sat idle along side for quite some time before Canada made a bid for them in 1998 in order to replace their Oberon class.
The Upholders were transferred to Canada starting in October 2000 the first being commissioned in December 2000. Of course, many who follow submarine news are well aware they have had a troublesome experience with these boats.
The fire on HMCS Chicoutimi which killed LT Chris Saunders was one such incident, this led to the boat not entering service until 2015, and more recently damage to a ballast tank on HMCS Corner Brook put the submarine out of action for seven years.
On July 14th 2021 news came out the Royal Canadian Navy will start the process of looking for a replacement for the now elderly Victoria class submarines.
With the problems of purchasing second hand equipment in mind it is likely the next submarines will be brand new and there are quite a few good options out there for the Canadians to choose from.
Requirements
I think it will be clear that there will be several key requirements that the Canadians will want to ensure before any bidding for the new submarine takes place.
Some of the key requirements I believe will be paramount for the future submarine acquisition will likely be:
1) To be built and Maintained in Canada (although I would say if building them in Canada would turn out to be cost prohibitive then they may drop this requirement)
2) Reasonable cost per unit
3) Have long ocean going endurance and capabilities (45-90 days)
4) Be a conventionally powered submarine or AIP (nuclear wont be an option due to cost)
5) Be of a proven design and likely already be in service with other navies
6) Have the ability to take the Lockheed fire control suite (like the Australians)
7) Have the ability to fire the MK48 torpedo and have the option to be able to fire anti ship missiles and mines (currently deleted from the Victoria class)
8) Have a life span of 40 years
To meet these requirements I have narrowed it down to just four boats which I believe fit the requirements I have listed, these boats are currently either in service or under construction.
The Boats
A modified version of this submarine is Available
Sweden’s Modified A26
Sweden has a modified variant of its A26 submarine which is much larger at 4,000tons displacement as opposed to the two Swedish variants at 1,900 tons, the modified A26 has a cost of around $473 million US.
These submarines were offered to the Australians to replace the Collins class but given the history and the inability of Saab to meet all the contractual parameters of the Australian government brief it was not selected, the A26 has also seen interest from Poland and the Netherlands.
Japanese Soryu class submarine in Yokasuka
Japanese Soryu class
The Soryu is a very advanced submarine and this is the first class of submarine listed for export by Japan, it is slightly larger than the Victoria but much more capable, it also features an Air Independent Propulsion system and is an ocean going submarine, per unit cost is estimated at $610 million US per boat .
India, Morocco, Norway Netherlands and Taiwan have expressed interest in the submarine, and the Soryu did take part in the Australian competition but was not selected.
This is the Suffren which the Short fin Barracuda is based from
France Short fin Barracuda
These boats are much larger than the Victoria class and are the only one to feature a pumpjet propulsion unit but as of yet no AIP capability, Canada has substantial ties with France so a deal could be reached for a batch of boats.
But with the current problems facing the Australian Navy in procuring these boats it may work against any potential bid as well as the current cost is around $800 million US per boat.
German type 212A the new CD version will be larger
German Type 212CD
Currently in build and a larger version of the successful type 212 these boats will be the smallest option, they do have ocean going capability and also have AIP installed, each boat is projected to cost $660 million per boat.
Currently Norway has selected this class to replace the type 210 Ula class, and given the interoperations of Norway and Canada the type 212CD would be a good fit.
The type 212 and its variants the Types 214 and 218 are in service with Greece, Italy, Israel, Singapore, Turkey, Portugal and South Korea.
Who would win? (my own opinion)
In my own opinion all the submarines have good merits but of all the designs it would have to be a clash between the Japanese Soryu and the German type 212CD, with the likely winner being the German type 212CD.
While overall the Japanese design offers transpacific operation the Canadian government does not have substantial ties with Japan, the Soryu is a success and is in service and with the cost being $610 million US per boat it meets the affordability the Canadians will likely seek however.
The Japanese are new to the export market and may not be able to meet all the Canadian requirements in terms of alterations, electronics and technology they wish to put in the boat.
The German Type 212CD is my own personal favorite to win and the reasons are that like the Soryu, they are in service so they are tried and tested but critically, they are in service with multiple navies.
Canada already has substantial ties with Europe and Germany.
While more expensive per boat than the Soryu they still have the long-range capability with AIP technology.
With the Germans having exported to multiple nations each with their own unique requirements its likely the Germans can accommodate any changes the Canadians want with minimal problems.
It is unlikely we are to find out in the near term just who has won the bidding, but this is just my own observations and opinions in short form as to who I personally think will win any future bid for the future Canadian navy submarine program.
Naturally there is much more to it than what I have written (I limit each article to around 1500 words maximum)
Of course many people reading this may not agree or may have a different view the objective of the article is to create a discussion and share views, and of course none of us will know who is right for now, so if you do have a different view or opinion leave a comment lets discuss it or alternatively you can join The Navy General Boards facebook page.
If the weapons are compatible on all. Why not 3 Japanese submarines on the Canada West coast and 3 German submarines on the Canada East coast and 6 French Barracuda nuclear submarines at Churchill in the Hudson Bay?
Having 3 types of submarine puts a massive strain on the budgets especially in the numbers you have proposed, Canada has not got any experience with nuclear submarines nor do they have the infrastructure to build maintain or support them.
Basing a submarine in Churchill is not ideal there’s very limited access to Churchill even in summer there are no roads only a light airport and a rail terminal (if they have repaired it) plus in winter it freezes over meaning getting out of port would be near impossible without a ice breaker permanently keeping a channel open, this will affect the ice roads to other remote areas so they wont want to break the ice there.
Even at 2% GDP Canada could not support a nuclear submarine program like the Australians can, they also don’t have the man power, another key point is if for any reason you need to substitute a boat between fleets for example as you proposed a Type 212 into the Pacific for a Soryu on the Atlantic then the docks plus maintenance crew may not be able to handle it.
The Soryu uses a different torpedo to the US and Canada, right now Canada is using MK48 ADCAP mod 4 the Soryu is using home grown type 89 and harpoon (Canada doesn’t use harpoon), it would require a refitting of the fire control system to be able to handle the different weapon system.
Advantage of 3 suppliers is more submarines sooner. These may be the only suppliers able to take on an additional Canadian contract. Canada does not have the ability and knowledge to build submarines, therefore of the rack would be preferable. 20-25 billion over a number of years as supplied may meet the purchase. What is more likely, slow bombers coming over the north that can be turned back by Gripen E jets or undetected submarines surfacing under the ice in the James Bay or Hudson Bay launching new supersonic missiles? SSN or SSBN submarines can detect them far better than a fleet of ships. Yes an ice breaker will be needed to keep the Churchill port open. Churchill would need to be upgraded. Churchill has an airport, train and port. Churchill is no farther North than Russia’s 2nd and 3rd largest cities. Jobs for the Territories. 6 SSN with 4 on patrol in rotation. 35 F35As if the cannon is fixed and loyal wingman or Valkyrie drones and SAAB gripen E would cut spending.
True Canada doesn’t have the ability to build their own submarines, so having them built overseas is currently the only option for Canada and yes it would give them more submarines sooner the other side to that is crew training and retention, a lot of secondary Naval assets are currently operated by reservists.
Also having three very different types of submarines in service puts a big strain on the current establishments that are maintaining the fleet and these would all have to be enlarged to handle the extra work loads not to mention the ports handling them.
Canada also has no nuclear vessel infrastructure so it would have to start from scratch which in turn would add billions to any budget proposal.
Having a nuclear submarine base in Churchill would do little, while it is no further north than Russia’s cities it is a protected area because of the Polar Bear sanctuary so you would face the environmental lobby as well as the first nations people who live there.
With no year round road connections the only real way to get crew and supplies in and out is by air, on top of that the port being ice bound most of the year means yes an ice breaker must be present but then that also upsets the local environment and the northern ice roads into Nunavut and winter is the only time some of these places can be supplied.
Churchill itself only has a population of around 1,200 people and they mainly work during the shipping season (July to September) working at the port, so you would also have to increase housing and facilities.
With not many people willing to relocate the wage bill would have to be at least double to what they would get in Halifax other parts of Manitoba or BC, that’s why people who live in the northern regions get the northern living allowance and tax relief.
So what you might save in terms of asset costs you would loose on Tax reductions, pay and pensions.
Russian bombers coming over the pole would likely be TU22 and TU160 both are supersonic bombers, there are already bases in the north that cover this angle and are currently fielding the FA18C which in turn is likely to be replaced by the F35A.
Canada is very unlikely to buy the Saab Grippen E while it is a good aircraft there is just no call for it, the more types you have in service the more spares you must carry this increases warehousing costs also personnel costs because you have to train ground crews to handle multiple types. (same applies to the submarines)
Currently the Canadian submarine fleet doesn’t have the capability to launch missiles, while some of the newer ones may well have that ability in the future for Canada the reality is the current doctrine doesn’t support this move.
Russian boats could yes launch from the arctic regions in fact that’s their entire doctrine for the northern fleet, an AIP submarine is capable of tracking a nuclear boat, it doesn’t have the same range / speed / endurance but they can still intercept.
Yes ships and aircraft would be useless over the ice regions and a SSN would be beneficial to Canada in that area absolutely, but the key thing would be not to place the submarine in Churchill as it is a bottle neck.
Direct access to the Arctic would be much better suited to say Tuktoyaktuk as it literally is a straight out to sea job from there, yes would require an ice breaker for some of the way to deep water but critically it already has established military presence there.
But again unwillingness to relocate plus the tax incentives increased pay and pension contributions can easily wipe out any savings you make in a very short space of time, Pay Benefits and pensions are the biggest expense of most if not all militaries.
Even over a 10 or 20 year time period the investment required would be huge and something I don’t think the tax payer or current liberal government would want to commit too, or indeed any successive governments for that matter.
Given the current unwillingness to spend money on defense its unlikely to be forthcoming in even the medium future, unfortunately like many governments they don’t tend to think beyond the next election on many items hence; why currently there is a debacle about the F35, Type 26 and the submarines going on in Parliament right now.
The current plan is to keep the current submarine fleet going into the 2030s at which time the replacement should be ready to come online and to save money its likely to be a single type AIP submarine.
After seeing the 2022 Indo-Pacific showcase the simple solution is 2-3 ESBs or ESDs at Churchill and Nanisivik and etc.. 4-5 type 31 frigates and 25% larger than the Halifax class to 1 type 26. Who is Canada trying to impress with the type 26 build. There is the 6 SSN and 6 SSK submarines. The tour of the Halifax class frigates and Victory class submarines is impressive. The ESD as a UAV base and UVV base may double for Northern search and rescue.
The Victoria’s and Halifax’s are well passed their prime and are in dire need of replacement in the coming decade.
The Halifax much like the type 26 is a multi role platform so its a good fit to go 1 for 1 replacement, plus the type 26 will be able to do more than what the Halifax or even the type 31 could do and that’s launch TLAM from the MK41.
Yes you could put the MK41 on the type 31 but you sacrifice VLS cells that would other wise be given over to SAMs
The Type 26 as a multi role frigate is a good option gives the fleet much more flexibility than the type 31 or 32 which the 31 is more of a prime ASW unit and the 32 a smaller multi role frigate.
Canada is a small regional navy (Green Water) so something multi role is much needed than a dedicated platform and I simply cant see right now any way to go for a multi platform fleet within the 1.5% GDP budget Canada has embarked on.
If Canada was to meet its 2024 2% commitment then that may open some doors certainly, but as for now the Army and Air force are very much in need of new equipment.
UUVs and drones are a good option MQ9s could work in the SAR role but if its action immediate then you need something manned.
The CP140 certainly needs replacing and there’s a very good MPA south of the border in the P8A
I have read already that VLS are being sacrificed on the proposed type 26 Canada build due to weight and speed. Canada has contracted for 3 type 26 only and money is on that will be all. I would suggest building the type 31 first like the UK and let the UK build the type 26 first. Australia has already found numerous problems with their build design and unsafe for the crew. Build something already launched like the type 31. The again proposed but untried stealth MEKO a300 and much larger a400 at 2-3 a400 and 3-4 a300 to 1 type 26 look very interesting. I hope they are built. I would replace the side ribs with torpedos as the 2 aft ribs should suffice. Better armed and faster by specifications. Did you notice SAAB has partnered with Boeing to build the new T7 red hawk trainers ?SAAB offered to build the Gripen in Canada creating another working relationship. Will Canada need new lightly armed KAI T-50 golden eagle trainers as well?
Trimming the VLS is nothing new but even 24 is more than what they have on the Halifax, which uses the MK57 for the ESSM.
The MK41 is more versatile in that it can launch quad packed ESSM in a single cell, Tomahawk and SM series missiles so overall even with the trimming down its still more capable than the Halifax.
Type 26 and 31 are in build neither in the water just yet, The initial contract for 3 has been signed I do believe and this will mean the shipyards will tool up soon, right now its way too late to start sourcing a new design as it would require another re tool and basically stalling an already overdue process.
In essence unless Canada does only opt for 3 (unlikely) it will overall cost more to re tool and restart a production line, then add in the delays and costs for those delays the only way around it is gets someone else to build other frigates for them as they wont meet the out of service deadlines on the already over stretched Halifax’s so this would leave a massive capability gap
A smoother option is let Canada build the type 26 3 of them and get the UK to build the Type 31 that’s a reasonable proposal and would ensure deadlines, problem is the RN is re equipping its navy so there’s a queue.
But the mixed fleet option isn’t that bad an idea if you get the balance right.
The three variations of the type 26 are all different so what might not work for one will work for another, don’t forget that Australia and Canada are opting to put in the Aegis combat system while the UK variation does not.
Each variation will require evaluation and balancing, you may find that the Canadian and Australian designs use 2 gas turbines instead of one because Aegis is a power hungry system.
The Mekos are good ships but there’s more to it than counting VLS Cells, you have to consider capability, would the meko be able to take AEGIS and the SPY radar systems (its likely but again at what cost) also is it a good fit for Canada that would have to be evaluated.
As for the SAAB Boeing partnership I did hear something in the wind but I don’t deal with the air side of things so it probably escaped me.
Each port would be dedicated to the type of submarines being stationed there. Pete Mackay has proposed in the National Post that Churchill also become the main port for the export of oil to replace Europes reliance on Russian oil. Also as the First Nations are suited to the North, they would be most suitable to be recruited as conservation officers to maintain the polar bear and seal populations and working on establishing a base as well as supporting staff. Training personnel would be commenced upon contacting the purchase. As submarines travel under the ice, the ice roads are not impacted other than the ice has been thinning in recent years. There are many potential ways to fund additional military acquisitions either by taxation or government spending which I will not get into now. Another option, as securing the two bays as it would greatly benefit the USA from attack, a joint venture may be beneficial to both parties. Please note the various submarines build times and availability of suppliers. I note the government has studied drones which are much more cost effective than jets and have not put them in the mix. I prefer spreading the money around among contractors, whether jets or submarines or drones to compare the benefits of all over long periods of use.
Well having the subs dedicated would be the most sensible idea and yes certainly does have merits in that respect.
The biggest issue I can see is that politically the Hudson bay is Nunavut jurisdiction while the Port of Churchill is Manitoban Jurisdiction.
The Port does already have an Oil operation so its not too farfetched to extend that idea further and upgrade everything, I do believe that has already been proposed some time ago.
The Inuit people are well suited to the North agreed but whether they would be happy to see a nuclear establishment in this area remains to be seen, given their connection with the land they may not be too happy for it.
Looking at the Hudson bay its pretty shallow in a lot of areas and has a mean depth of only around 100 meters, Yes submarines can traverse under the ice but there’s a cost when doing it in Shallow waters.
In shallow waters you have the shallow water effect which is the low pressure under the hull trying to suck you down, best example I can give of this effect is the capsize of the Herald of Free Enterprise ferry.
So a submarine would have to keep a good 10/20 m from the bottom to avoid this plus anything else that’s down there.
You also have the displacement factor, which is where a submarine that will transit under water close to the surface it creates a slight bulge this could force the ice roads up and weaken them of destroy them entirely, So it would have to be looked into but anything shallower than 100m would be a challenge of Navigation.
The you have to train the crews to operate under ice which I cant see any issue with as the RN and USN could assist here.
Yes there are many ways to fund the Acquisition, I cant see raising taxes as an answer without the politician being hounded out of office, excluding provincial taxes the federal income tax is currently about 24% of income, by the time you add on all the other taxes your up to 33/34% of your income gone (depending on province).
What is clear though Canada needs to get its rear into gear and increase defense spending from the proposed 1.5% in 2022 to the promised 2% in 2024.
But even then I don’t see that as being enough to support a nuclear submarine program even if you spread it over 10 or 15 years.
Drones would be good acting as AEW platforms for the north, Global Hawk would be a great fit for long duration patrols in the north covering a vast area, it would certainly be much cheaper than say the E3D doing a similar mission, and there’s less risk of crew being caught in the tundra if the vehicle goes down.
Spreading the money around certainly does give you the competition factor and that’s something the UK should do but doesn’t so yes I agree that it would ultimately benefit the defense industry in the longer term, and yes it would give you competing platform designs that you could compare, the only issue with costing is that if you do have multiple platforms doing a similar role such as a fighter / attack aircraft you do end up duplicating spares and having increased need for warehousing to store spares which in turn drives up cost.
Umiak is a very special ship and is ice strengthened, she is a good design but sometimes does require the assistance of a dedicated breaker
Well when it comes to taxation you are in my wheelhouse. Canada has finally come around to my way of thinking and after 9 years giving the idea to theUSA they are starting to come around to the same way. I also planted a seed in Eastern Europe and Russia. It is called net worth taxation. I like the idea of the 10 million exemption and 100 million in the USA but I have tax brackets above that. Those that have the most to protect and gain the most from wars pay the most. Corporations are no longer taxable as the shareholders corporation’s net worth is taxable. All undeclared offshore money becomes taxable, diamonds in Swiss accounts and other valuables, illegal cash and accounts all become taxable. Undeclared penalty, 50-75%. Taxed based on birth country and/or citizenship. Depths is a concern, but the mapping will solve that. If Canadian submarines cannot travel the neither can foreign submarines. China and N. Korea have combined around 150 various submarines. Russia around 50. The USA is relied on far too much. The avenger drone appears to be a choice at an estimated 6 million. Valkyrie and Loyal Wingman comes in at about 2 million.
Taxation is something I have little knowledge of in all honesty.
DPRK boats rarely leave port and to my knowledge have never left their own waters, Chinese submarines have been seen as far as the Indian ocean and none to date have made a public transit under ice.
Russia has a substantial submarine force and most of their Northern fleet commanders have trained specifically under ice, this is something the UK and USA don’t often do publicly probably the most notable exercise that is publicly admitted to is the bi annual ICEX which we just had one this year.
While depths are a concern some boats are more adept to it than others, inshore operations on the Trafalgar’s can see them in 45m of water with a type 23 charging overhead, this requires very skillful handling of the boat by the crew, under ice its much harder.
Canadian submarines currently seldom operate in anything more than first year ice the hulls and sails of the Victoria class are not designed to punch through anything thicker.
Nearly all of the current generation of SSKs are also not optimized for under ice work, The Swedish boats have some capability as do the Russians but this is limited at best.
The French SSNs of the Rubis class to my knowledge have never been up under the ice either and their current generation SSNs are unlikely to go that way either, France is more interested in the Atlantic and Mediterranean.
Currently there is an agreement between the UK and Canada where the UK will assist Canada in the arctic region with the deployment of a SSN as needed, what’s notable is the USA has not been asked to do the same yet, the USA does work closely with Canada on northern defense which works in both countries favor.
Given the potential for under water surveillance systems this area would not really need anything more than something akin to a more advanced SOSUS network, while there is some merit in stationing submarines in the area strategically it doesn’t make too much sense as its a potential bottle neck that can be blockaded by an opposing force as there are few exits to the open ocean.
Drones would be a good choice in the north as suggested, these would free up manned air frames and if they crashed your not risking a human lives at 60 below, but of course the ice does give a nice cover to a submarine one that a drone cannot see through neither can a MPA or Surface ship.
Over all under ice operations are the domain of the nuclear submarine, but now more advanced AIP submarines are coming on the market we can certainly add them into the mix in a limited capacity.
The UK boats are more than capable of operating in the Hudson bay area more so than Canadian boats, but again this is up to the Canadian government and again can cause damage to the ice roads in the region if they do go through, its not always about the size of the boat its about the endurance capability.
Type 212A for example is more than capable of operating submerged for 3+ weeks without the need to surface and is around half the cost of a SSN and yet has similar sensor systems to a SSN, where as Canadas current fleet of boats cant match those endurance capabilities in some form or another thus under ice operations are not on the list of capabilities.
The 100 meters shore line drops off to 300 meters in the centre of the bay.
That Umiak I plow in through the ice is amazing to watch.
The Russians could right at this moment have 3 SSBN submarines sitting on the bottom of James Bay and the Hudson Bay surfacing at night to let part of the crew take shore leave. My choice is the 216 SSK because of the vertical launch capabilities over the Japan Taigei class submarine but the Taigei is enough for the Pacific small coast line. The USA definitely drew the map on that one. I found this interesting for the French short fin Barracuda for Arctic patrol. The Canadian Integral Molten Salt Reactor (IMSR) is a nuclear power plant design targeted at developing a commercial product for the small modular reactor (SMR) market. The IMSR Core-unit comes in a single size designed to deliver 400 megawatts of thermal heat which can be used for multiple applications and when used to generate electricity then the notional capacity is 190 megawatts electrical. I prefer off the shelf to begin with then experimenting. I also prefer the Gripen in the jet fighter mix. Like my grandmother always said, don’t put all your eggs in one basket.
Not likely we have a very good handle on Russia SSBN operating areas, none would ever come that close to Canada or North America and there is several reasons why; the first being they actually don’t need to.
We are aware the Russian missiles are fully capable of being launched from their home ports and hitting targets as far as Washington DC, so realistically there’s no need for them to move that far.
Their Bastion concept something we have seen since the 80s and is still in used sees Russian SSBNs operate under the ice fairly close to their own country, in fact recent exercises done by the Russians reinforce this.
No SSBN will ever want to be in a confined water space they much prefer deep open ocean to hide makes 0 sense for one to be in the Hudson bay, as for sitting on the bottom nuclear submarines have their intakes on the bottom of the hull or just off to the side if you cover them up they cant bring in water to purify for the secondary loop and you would end up with a very broken reactor if it doesn’t over heat.
This also doesn’t just affect submarines HMS Albion encountered something similar near Bangladesh during a visit, the mud coming from the delta got ingested into the sea water intakes and royally screwed the filtration systems, so much so they had to ration water onboard.
The only boats that would be needed in that region is if they wish to launch special forces, which would be done by a much smaller SSN. but again by confining the operation area to a small bay or inlet means that they too can become trapped in and easily hunted down as they have limited ability to evade.
The shallower the water means limited ability to dive, plus it incurs a speed penalty, shallow water and high speed running don’t go well together at all, you have to consider the shallow water effect which is the low pressure below the hull which basically sucks you deeper a submarine travelling close to the bottom with limited depth above its fin wouldn’t want to run the risk of going aground.
You would also have to factor in cavitation effects, shallow water and high revolutions create cavitation that’s not there in deeper water at deeper depth.
Sound is the submarine enemy make to much of it and well its game over for the submarine, also shallow water and high speed both have an effect to the onboard sensors and reduces their ability to detect surface and sub surface platforms.
The type 216 which is a derivative of the type 212 is a fantastic platform but does Canada really need a submarine with VLS? likely this would be a unneeded expense, but yes it would give an added capability for sure, but if you can fire a few from the torpedo tubes why add the expense its the reason astute don’t have VLS tubes, the US Virginia and later FLT II & III 688s have them as they are a general purpose submarine and offer a fleet commander another VLS Battery that’s all.
Basically it boils down to doctrine, Canada is a Green water navy, which means its capable of operating around the world in a limited capacity but ultimately it is simply meant for command and control of their EEZ, the US and RN are Blue water navies and have a wide global doctrine.
IMSR reactors are very new untried in submarines it would make for a good experiment for sure and the technology is now at the stage where inside the decade it would be tried and tested in a boat, it may also be cheaper which if it is could indeed give Canada that option of going nuclear but we will have to wait and see quite frankly I wont hold my breath just yet.
The Grippen is a decent aircraft I do like them however they are a gen 4+ aircraft unlike the 35 which is a 5th gen aircraft, while the grippen is cheaper you still need an entire supply chain and stores network, what’s more that will be coming from Sweden and if there is a war of any magnitude spares could be hard to come by where as the 35 production line is literally next door.
Personally a mix of F18E/F and F35 would be a sound mix, the 18 has well and truly proved itself while the 35 gives you the stealth capability and thus you don’t put all the eggs in one basket.
Saab proposed a joint venture with Canada to build and maintain aircraft.
The JAS 39 Grippen is a good aircraft but has its limitations, the F/A18EFG models are a lot more flexible and capable
However there is merit to having the Grippen for localized area air defense
The type 26 frigates will also have vls.
The new stealth submarines have been able to sink the aircraft carriers during war games. What will protect those new frigates? The billions set aside for the $10 a day childcare would easily pay for new submarines and aircraft. The income tax free child tax benefit and GST benefit are not enough? May I have more please! Time to re-think priorities.
Type 26 will be a general purpose frigate which will make it similar in scope to what Canada currently has in the Halifax just more up to date and more capable in terms of weapons carrying capability.
ASW is not done with just a frigate alone its usually a multi role effort between it and the onboard Helo and, if one is available a CP140 Aurora. the method isn’t always to detect the submarine but to drive it out of the way.
The Captain of the submarine does not want to be bounced by an aircraft as he has no defense against it so they will want to keep out of the way.
Submarines have been able to take down carriers this isnt a new revelation, War games and exercises are scripted to a degree so the defending frigate has a rough idea of the area it will be in, naturally in war it wont.
A good ASW screen will keep a submarine at distance and this is where a layered defense comes into play, if you look at the composition of RN and USN carrier groups you usually have the ASW platforms close to the carrier and the ASW aircraft doing the outer cordon, between them and it is normally the ASUW AAW assets.
Submarines give you a deniable asset as well as a force multiplier, If you want to see how effective a submarine can be at doing this, when the Argentine government heard a British SSN left Gibraltar it forced them to invade the Falklands earlier than they had planned, in reality that submarine wasn’t heading for the Falklands at all and 4 different boats went south.
Like all countries we have to balance priorities skimping on defense leaves you open for an attack as many countries have found out first hand in the course of history.
So let’s go with the globe and mail article. 30 billion $ in universal 10 $ a day child care to create 146,000 additional child care spots across Canada. So divide 30 billion by 146,000 children. Then divide that over 4 years until preschool starts and that gives you over 51,000 $ each year. Now I have heard as high as 39 billion $. I think I could have a couple private nannies for that amount. How crazy are these politicians? Also, the KSS III is maybe a better option over Japan’s submarines but S. Korea is in a building race with the North.
I am not sure about the first part of the comment, but the KSIII is a SSB and was designed as a response to the DPRK SSB submarine (Which is a heavily modified Romeo) Canada has no need for ballistic missiles and limited need for cruise missiles.
The KSIII is also based on the type 214 submarine which again is a derivative of the type 212, but probably the best type out there is the type 218SG which is Singapore’s version of a much enlarged type 212.
Right now the South Korean Navy is well above and beyond technology wise than anything the DPRK can produce even with Chinese help, while the DPRK is said to have up to 70 submarines (I personally doubt the figure) they tend to be small mini submarines, their long range submarines such as the Romeo and Ming type are 70/80 year old designs with limited upgrade capability.
Canada realistically only needs a long range patrol submarine that can fire cruise missiles through torpedo tubes, anything else I do feel is a waste.
213-219 billion lifetime for 15 type 26 frigates or
4 barracuda SSN submarines,
4 type 216 SSK submarines,
4 taigei class SSK submarines (2 year build),
8 fpv 35 swiftships,
8 type 26 frigates,
50 Saab gripen E able to share data between aircraft,
40 F35 lightning II compatible with loyal wingman,
20 GA MQ-20 avenger UAV,
200 Boeing MQ-28 loyal wingman (ghost bat) UAV
or 200 Krator Valkyrie XQ-58 UAV,
5000 Glock 19 Gen4,
500 Milkor mg140 40mm grenade launcher.
75M swift corvette by swiftships possibly in the mix
4-5 type 31 to 1type 26 frigates. Only 4 if any type 26 frigates to replace the destroyers. This is not the USA. Other choice, build German MEKO a300, a200, a100 and 6/type 212CD and/or type 216 and/or type 218 SSK submarines. Canada builds ships and Germany submarines.
Type 26 is currently the best multi role platform available with its sensor fit, Aegis as proposed would give the Canadians a very capable vessel the type 31 can be fitted with Aegis but would probably be a waste of money for the type of operations Canada wants to utilize its vessels for.
The Meko types are great I have sailed on some of the German vessels however adapting them to fit the Aegis system could be some what problematic it would require some alteration.
The Type 212CD would give Canada a submarine that has a good history and also as the German and Norwegian Navies will use them a familiarity between the two NATO countries.
The 218 and 216 are good options too, the good thing about these types of submarine is that they are relatively easy to customize.
Add light fighter trainers KAI T-50 golden eagle and Boeing T-7 red hawk.
I cant see SSNs in Canadas immediate future and by the time the Suffren is done and dusted in about 10 years time they will re tool to build the follow on boat, given Canada has never built a submarine the expertise is just not there so they would have to be built in France then given the issues Australia had with their project I wouldn’t want to trust the Naval Group (I’ve worked with them and well not the best)
F35 and UAVs are a good fit for the Air force, the Grippen not so much they would defiantly be better off going for the F/A18 E F G models and simply put the G model is the EW model which would give Canada some capability in that area, the Grippen doesnt have that capability.
Also the Hornet is familiar to RCAF.
Japan has only recently come on the market for export and their one and only pitch failed, the newest boats are incredibly capable (I’ve been on the preceding Soryu) and they would make for a very good acquisition for the Pacific fleet at Esquimalt, but its going to be down to cost, like going for a German option they would have to be built in Japan something the Japanese probably would be willing to do.