Canadian submarine interests are extremely relevant, and can be divided into three categories: the defence of Canada and North America; supporting Canadian expeditionary deployments; and supporting Canada’s interest in global maritime stability. If the Canadian government does not invest in a modern submarine capability, its navy will not be able to patrol its three ocean shores. In order to meet Canada’s defensive needs, the RCN must have an effective submarine capacity. Submarines are among the world’s most highly complex machines. They are the ultimate stealth platforms, able to operate in areas where sea and air control is not assured, and to gain access to areas denied to other forces. Without submarines, Canada cannot have the vital maritime situational awareness as to who is operating in our waters.
In terms of surveillance of Canada’s ocean approaches and the protection of its own sovereignty, a submarine capability is critical. Canada can ill-afford to ignore what goes on either above, or below, the surface of the oceans so vital to our national interests any longer. It is a foregone conclusion that there are submarines beneath Canada’s polar ice cap and …. they are not ours. Only a system that can reach under the ice can tell us what else might be operating there. This requires a blunt discussion about propulsion systems for a class of submarine that must operate in the world’s most hostile and unforgiving maritime environment.
The conversation with the Canadian public about this looming capability loss needs to start now. The country will likely need bigger, quieter boats that can perform stealth missions, launch undersea robots and be able to fire guided missiles at shore targets. The market for submarines, especially with emerging powers such as India and China, has grown by leaps and bounds, but there are still only a handful of countries in the world capable of building them. At the top of this list are companies like ThyssenKrupp Marine of Germany, DNCS from France, BAE Systems Maritime–Submarines of Britain and General Dynamics Electric Boat from the U.S.A. Canada then needs to expeditiously select a submarine to replace the Victoria-class as they are rapidly reaching end of life, and decide on numbers to acquire.
The German Type 216 SSK is a 4,300 ton (submerged) submarine with a length of 90m (295ft), a beam of 8.1m (26.5ft) and a draft of 6.6m (21.6ft). It has a double hull giving it similar capabilities to nuclear submarines and is able to remain under water for weeks in order to reach crisis areas. At the heart of this boat is a propulsion system that employs a methanol reformer Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) system to achieve stealth capability and a submerged range without snorkeling of approximately 2,600 nautical miles (4,815 km) at four knots, assisted by lithium ion batteries as a supplementary energy source. The Type 216 is equipped with three multi-purpose modules. These allow the Type 216 unparalleled flexibility to meet rapidly evolving requirements, without the need for an expensive and time-consuming refit. It has the ability, to launch cruise missiles, to deploy Special Forces with manned and un-manned under-water delivery vehicles. The advantage of the Type 216 design is that it has the ability to be reconfigured rapidly, in order to meet changing operational requirements. The biggest disadvantage of the Type 216 SSK design is that at some point it must at least partially surface in order to snorkel to refresh its air which would be impossible to do under thick ice conditions.
The Type 216 has an extraordinarily large payload of 39 weapons including 18 torpedoes or anti-ship missiles and 21 land attack missiles. If all three vertical multi-purpose modules are utilized with each housing seven missiles, then total weapons payload increases to 45, if the Type 216 can deploy with all six torpedo tubes occupied. The Type 216 is already compatible with the American AN/BYG-1 submarine combat system. Snorkeling under diesel electric power at 10 knots adds a further 10,400 nautical miles (19,260 km). Overall endurance is about 80 days during which, a submerged AIP period could, if required, exceed more than 18 days. The Class is designed to be extremely quiet due to its propulsion system and, uses a sound absorbing coating on the hull. While a 33-strong crew would be sufficient to man and operate the Type 216, 60 bunks are provided to meet the navy’s requirements (Special Forces etc.). Crew well-being and comfort standard are accomplished through enlarged accommodations, recreation areas and utility rooms. It has sewage and waste treatment facilities to fulfill future environmental regulations. More submariners would need to be recruited though. A $20 billion contract to ThyssenKrupp would deliver 12 Type 216-based submarines to be built in Canada, Germany or a mix of both. The life cycle costs would be upwards of 50B. The Type 216 SSK would be a good choice to replace the Victoria-class submarine.
The new French DNCS SMX Ocean-class SSK, is basically the same design as the French Barracuda-class SSN, with no nuclear reactor but with the latest AIP technologies. It displaces 4,765 tons (5,300 tons submerged), a length of 100m (333.3ft), a beam of 8.8m (29ft) and a height of 15.5m (50.8ft). Maximum diving depth is 350m (1,150ft) with a maximum submerged speed of 20kts. It has a very long patrol range of 18,000 nautical miles (33,336km) at 10 knots with a patrol cruise of 90 days. SMX Ocean is equipped with an eight-diver lockout chamber, plus a dry deck shelter for Special Forces and a dedicated UUV bay. The SMX Ocean-class not only incorporates the latest cutting-edge technology advances available, but can also stock five different types of weapons: torpedoes, anti-surface missiles, anti-air missiles, cruise missiles and mines for a total payload of 34 weapons.
The concept behind the class can deliver a very diverse patrol program. The Australian Navy has recently chosen the SMX Ocean-class (Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A) as replacement for their Collins-class submarine and intends to acquire 12 of these boats (some follow-on boats may be nuclear-powered), at an initial cost of 20B with life cycle costs of 50B AUD. If Canada were to acquire 12 of these larger SMX Ocean-class SSK, operational effectiveness would be improved over the German Type 216 SSK. This SSK, would be a game-changer for Canada’s future national defence.
Exploring the Nuclear SSN Option
Canadian submarines will need to be able to operate for prolonged periods, at great distances, and with unlimited endurance in some of the most unforgiving waters on the planet. The Arctic’s under-ice environment has limited opportunities for conventional diesel/AIP-powered submarines, which lack endurance, speed and versatility, the ability to safely surface in extreme conditions. Only SSNs have the power for repeated surfacing through ice of any significant thickness, even several feet. Conventional submarines are restricted to near ice-edge operations. To replenish air, SSKs must surface, or almost surface, to raise its snorkel mast at regular intervals, which is impossible for SSKs under all but the thinnest layers of ice.
A look at the four non-nuclear Air Independent Propulsion systems currently in service or development shows these clear limitations. First of all, the current AIP record for a slow submerged transit is a mere 18 days (without snorting) at the most. It is important to remember that none of the conventional power options allow for prolonged under-ice operations
Declaring the operation of a Canadian nuclear-powered submarine in Canadian Arctic waters and Northwest Passage choke points, indicates to other states that Canada has the capability to control the water space management (WSM) in ocean areas claimed by Canada. Demonstrating to Canadians and non-Canadians alike that Canada has the will and the capability to assert sovereignty in the seas of the Arctic, will become more important as global warming allows increased exploration of the Arctic seabed, and its rich resources. The WSM system is an important tool in this endeavour, but only if Canada maintains a viable and capable submarine force which, by necessity, demands the timely replacement of the ‘ice-edge limited’ conventional SSK by a fleet of 12 under-ice capable SSN’s. Existing AIP technology does not meet Canadian geographical demands for extended safe under-ice operations.
The SSN is the only tool/platform capable of extending the RCN’s reach below Canada’s ice-covered Arctic waters by demonstrating a measure of actual control, providing the RCN with a respectable presence in the three oceans, and a true force-multiplier able to meet all Canadian maritime sovereignty and defence requirements. An SSN can travel the Northwest Passage, under the ice cap, from Atlantic to Pacific, in just 14 days vice a month via the Panama Canal. Without SSN’s, Canada cannot exercise authority in the Arctic waters within the confines of its sovereign territory. This is a central requirement to any definition of sovereignty. If we are to be truly sovereign, we cannot contract out the defence of Canada. An annual defence budget increase of $5B or 2% of GDP, would allow Canada to fund the SSN acquisition program and allow us to finally contribute our ‘fair share’ within the NATO alliance.
The British Astute-class SSN will replace the Trafalgar-class SSN. It has a displacement of 8,600 short tons, a length of 97m (318ft), a beam of 11.3m (37 ft 1 in) and a draft of 10m (33ft). It has a Rolls-Royce Pwr 2 Reactor (25 year lifespan) able to generate a top speed of over 30 kts (submerged) with unlimited range. A tested depth of over 300m (984 ft). Armaments include storage for 38 weapons including Tomahawk Block IV cruise missiles and heavy-weight torpedoes. The bridge fin of the Astute-class boats is specially reinforced to allow surfacing through heavy ice caps. These submarines have a crew of 98 sailors and can also be fitted with a dry deck shelter, which allows special forces to deploy whilst the submarine is submerged. More than 39,000 acoustic tiles mask the vessel’s sonar signature, giving the Astute-class improved acoustic qualities over any other submarine previously operated by the Royal Navy. Twelve of these boats would be a real game changer for Canada.
The Virginia-class, also known as the SSN-774 class is a 7,900 ton boat, with a length of 115m (377 ft), a beam of 10m (34 ft) and a depth of 490m (1600 ft). It has a S9G nuclear reactor delivering 40,000 shaft horse power with a speed of 25+ kts. Nuclear core life is estimated at 33 years with a compliment of 135 sailors. Armaments include : 12 VLS & four torpedo tubes, capable of launching Mark 48 torpedoes, UGM-109 Tactical Tomahawks, Harpoon missiles and the new advanced mobile mine when it becomes available. Block V boats will have the additional VPM module which contains four large diameter tubes which can accommodate 7 Tomahawk cruise missiles each. This would increase the total number of torpedo-sized weapons (such as Tomahawks) carried by the Virginia-class design from about 37 to about 65, an increase of about 76%. Optical fiber fly-by-wire Ship Control Systems replaces electro-hydraulic systems for control surface actuation. Command and control system module (CCSM) is built by Lockheed Martin. Twelve of these boats would also be a game changer for Canada.
The French Barracuda-class SSN has a displacement of 5300 tons (submerged). It has a displacement of 8,600 short tons, a length of 99.4m (326 ft), a beam of 8.8m (29 ft) and a draft of 7.3m (24ft). It has a pump-jet propulsion 50 MW nuclear reactor with a 10 year lifespan before refueling. It is able to generate a top speed of over 25 kts (submerged) with unlimited range. It has an endurance of between 70-90 days with a crew of 60 officers and men. Armaments include 4 × 533 mm (21.0 in) tubes; 20 storage racks, including MDCN SCALP Naval missiles, Exocet SM39 Block2 missiles, F21 Artemis heavy torpedoes and FG29 mines. This submarine can also be fitted with a dry deck shelter, which allows special forces to deploy whilst the submarine is submerged. Twelve of these boats would also be a game changer for Canada.
30 thoughts on “Canada’s Future Submarines”
The Japanese also offer an interesting option with their newest designs. By replacing the lead acid batteries with lithium ion batteries they are expecting to have a longer under water operational time. Energy density of lead acid batteries to lithium ion batteries suggests a 3 times advantage.
This could be increased , depending on design considerations as lithium ion are less heavy. There fore more lithium batteries could be incorporated in the design for the same weight increasing the energy available again. For Canada that could mean a limited under ice capability. If a sub design allowed several weeks of under water capability. This could be further enhanced if a strengthened conning tower allowed surfacing trough arctic ice. Another possibility would be the have a strengthened snorkel that could be used to punch though the ice pack and allow under ice recharging. Artic ice conditions are changing with global warming with artic ice pack being less thick. This could offer Canada a low cost under ice capability to air independent propulsion technologies or nuclear technologies and stay within canada’s Limited defence budget.
I am a tour guide on HMCS Ojibwa on display in Port Burwell Ontario. She was decomissioned in 1998 and every day she reveals new secrets. Submarines are a technical marvel and we need to do our homework in order to replace the Victoria’s. We must stay away from the procrastination process that haunts military purchases in Canada most certainly the mess incurred when replacing the Oberons. During tours we often get into discussions involving our current boats–which I defend–and the need for future submarines. My opinion is that we need 12 boats–with at least half have under ice capabilities. And we don’t need to get into a long debate about building our own in order to support Canadian shipbuilding. We have over 11 million square miles of ocean to protect and 250,000 kms of shoreline and the development of the north we must have the correct fleet
Walter: Couldn’t agree with you more. The time to move this discussion forward needs to start now with all Canadians. The SSN option should have a chance to be discussed intelligently with everyone. The days of fearing the Nuclear option with a public that perhaps at the time did not really understand the SSN attack Sub are over. Either the Astute or Virginia Class Submarine would give “others” pause. Not to say that an AIP Sub would not be a good option, but it’s lengthy under-ice endurance is just not there yet. The day that an AIP sub could come close to an SSN capabilities is far, far, away. Time that Canada just does not have. A fleet of 10-12 Canadian SSN’S would be a real “game changer” for Canada and the costs would not be that far out of line and if Canada were to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence an SSN acquisition programme would be easily attainable. A fleet of 12 Virginia Class boats would cost around 39-40B CAD at 2018 prices with up to 60/65B CAD including Training & Infrastructure. My thoughts anyway. Cheers!
I can certainly appreciate your enthusiasm, David, but I’m afraid that you’re being wildly optimistic in regards to some of your projections. Even setting the procurement costs aside, there exist massive structural and economic barriers to the acquisition and operation of a single SSN, let alone twelve. There presently exists zero expertise regarding naval nuclear operations within Canada, and no dry docks or facilities capable of accommodating or servicing an SSN to speak of. 20-25 billion is an extremely bullish estimation for the ancillary costs associated with establishing a new SSN capability; even then, such a sum is roughly equivalent to the CAF’s entire annual budget. A $60 billion spend, on top of the new SSC and CF-18 procurements, would leave the CAF in a fiscal black hole for the better part of half a century.
And we haven’t yet considered the fairly intractable political obstacles confronting such a procurement. Every dollar spent on military procurement will invariably either be a dollar expropriated from social services and infrastructural spending, or a dollar added onto the national deficit, just as global interest rates and government borrowing costs are rising. Ottawa are already struggling to sell the recapitalization of critical capabilities, such as the SSC and the CF-18 replacement; an SSN procurement could well sink any government insane enough to propose it. Nor can we take for granted the willingness of the UK, French, and American governments to share any information concerning the national technological secrets they’ve developed at a massive expense; when the Mulroney government attempted to establish an SSN fleet back in the 1980s, the Americans were openly hostile, threatening to veto any sales of nuclear reactors from either the UK or France, and the British were indifferent at best.
I certainly agree with your contention that the Arctic will prove to be a crucial strategic theatre for Canada in this century, particularly with the Northwest Passage gradually becoming a viable maritime trade route, and the necessity for Canada to recapitalise its SSK capability, but an SSN procurement is simply beyond Canada’s capacity in every measurable metric.
Kevin: I have read your comments with great interest. Yes, the physical infrastructure for a Canadian SSN fleet is not there yet including the training and extra submariners that would have to be developed … but that will come with a government that is able to see the possibilities. If the government were to spend at least 2% more of its GDP on defence, as most NATO countries already have, this fleet would not only be possible, but would easily be built with no negative affects on our strong economy or social infrastructure now or in the future. The Canadian people are really smart and I truly believe they are capable of reading past the assumption that a nuclear submarine would be so dangerous and not acceptable to all Canadians. Please, give them more credit than that! SSKs with AIP technologies are ‘ice-edged’ only and just not capable of defending our Arctic waters now or in the foreseeable future. The American government’s position has substantially changed on giving their own submarine technologies to us over the years. Our present SSKs have a lot of American technologies in them right now. Our sub combat systems and our torpedo weapons are all American as well. Heck, most of our cryptographic equipment and codes are all American. A nuclear reactor is only a propulsion system by any other means, and should not be a deterrent to acquiring a modern SSN submarine fleet. This can work!! My thoughts anyway. Cheers!!
the French SSN needs no specialist nuclear shore facilities as they use low enriched uranium, not highly enriched. Downside is they need to be refuelled once in their life, from a standard civilian power station. Upside is quality boat that will give Canada freedom of use. Canada buying US boat would be stifled in the contract and USA does not recognize Canadian arctic sovereignty of Northwest passage.
I disagree. President Regan told Mulroney that he would override Congress and allow the technology to be exported to Canada in 1988. So that was go ahead regardless of what his underlings told Perrin Beatty.
Dear Sir, You do realize that to manufacture lithium batteries is very expensive and they are very difficult to recycle plus the amount of fossil fuel required to expose and create these lithium batteries is horrendous. Nuclear power is the only way to go, unlimited range, can stay submerged indefinitely. The new nuclear submarine nuclear power plant lasts the life of the boats, in my mind these submarines are much cheaper in the long run. The military must consider the long term 25-30 year life.
who cares about using fossil fuels? The priority is effucient subs. Canada may require a mixed fleet of both nuke/conventional. Nuke boats have minuses as well as pluses
Perrin Beatty’s 1989 Defence White Paper conclusion report after our government rejected under foreign entity pressure the purchase of 12 modern nuclear attack French Ruby class Subs (best ones at the time) Shameful to this day.
Conclusion
The idea of a Canadian SSN fleet died on a balance sheet, and with it, the White Paper’s attempt to extend Canadian control over the North West Passage. And it was that control that the Canadian government had sought when it decided to alter radically its maritime strategy and to pursue nuclear submarines. A departure from the previous Liberal understanding of defence, the 1987 White Paper functioned under the assumption that a state’s sovereignty was directly related to its ability to defend itself from foreign attack in wartime while controlling its national territory and providing for its own safety in peacetime. It was with this logic that Perrin Beatty decided that a Canadian SSN fleet would be the ideal solution for asserting Canada’s sovereignty. It was considered necessary that, for the purposes of Canadian sovereignty and self-respect, it be Canadian forces providing for the defence of Canadian waters. To allow the USN to continue to provide Arctic security invariably would weaken Canada’s claims to its northern waters and would be incompatible with the responsibilities of Canada as an independent state. The issue was not simply a matter of security but whether Canada would have the tools to provide that security. For, according to Perrin Beatty, a state that contracts out the defence of its own territory is not sovereign, but a protectorate.
Will our present government act on this and move forward to replace our Dying Old Subs?
Sergio: Could not agree with you more. Glad to have you in the SSN corner! With a 2% GDP increase, this fleet would be very possible!
I really think that SSNs are what Canada needs for its Arctic water operations, but not a fleet of 12. 4-6 would be ideal to keep at least a one sub deployed presence up north while the Atlantic and Pacific theaters would be able to support cheaper SSK units. I really think that Japan has a great package. I have to agree that Canada much like Australia is not willing to go nuclear as history has shown with its cancelled Canada class. Though the United States might be willing to let Canada and its allies take up the slack as it will face a deficit of SSNs in the coming years. If we focus on a smaller number of SSNs in a limited area it may require less infastructure and be more affordable. Still I think our best bet is a larger fleet of lithium upgraded Soryu Class (at half a billion each they are affordable compared to multi billion dollar SSNs) and be happy with what coverage we can get.
Hi J. Park!
Modern characteristics of 21st century submarines are: endurance, stealth, freedom of movement and versatility. The best sensor weapon that gives others pause is without question, another submarine. If Canada does not invest in a modern submarine capability, our navy will be unable to patrol its three oceans. The larger question to answer is: Why are replacement submarines not included in Canada’s National Shipbuilding Strategy?
Only systems that can reach under the ice can tell us who else might be operating there. This requires blunt discussions with all Canadians about propulsion systems for a modern submarine that must operate in the world’s most hostile and unforgiving maritime environments. The Victoria Class does not possess an extensive under-ice capability, making them ineffective in Canada’s Arctic. The conversation about this looming capability loss, needs to start now. Canada’s recent Defence Policy reiterated the need for Canada’s Navy to be comprised of a balanced fleet of platforms which includes submarines. Clearly, in this policy, the government has acknowledged the unique qualities and options a submarine capability brings to our national defence, and the pressing need to maintain this capability. A modern submarine designed to meet Canadian requirements must have the ability to operate in all three of our oceans without restriction and have a vigorous under-ice capability, with long endurance (including crew habitability considerations).
The Canadian SSN Option:
Currently there is only one type of air-independent propulsion that can regenerate the atmosphere necessary for prolonged submerged operations – that is nuclear propulsion. The nuclear infrastructure surrounding this option however, is not attainable at this time due to Canadian fiscal constraints. That assessment has most assuredly not changed over the last three decades and will not change unless Canada decides to increase defence spending to at least 2% of GDP in the near future.
It boils down to one question: Can a current conventionally powered modern SSK submarine with AIP technologies, substitute for an SSN powered submarine to defend Canada’s future maritime security? The answer is definitely no; at least not for the foreseeable future. The logic that a Canadian SSN fleet would be a force-multiplier, meet Canadian maritime military requirements and be an ideal solution to assert our sovereignty, has definite merit and should be seriously considered as replacements for our Victoria Class SSKs. The Canadian public is more intelligent than most “nay-sayers” would give them credit for. They realize that there is nothing to fear from acquiring an SSN capability. Canadian submarines will need to operate for prolonged periods, at great distances, with unlimited endurance in some of the most unforgiving waters on the planet. The Arctic’s under-ice environment has limited opportunities for any conventional AIP-powered submarine, which lack endurance, speed, versatility and the ability to safely surface in extreme conditions. Only SSNs have the power to repeatedly surface, even through several feet of ice. Conventional submarines are restricted to near ice-edge operations. To replenish air, SSKs must surface, or almost surface, raising their snorkel mast at regular intervals; impossible to do under all but the thinnest layers of ice. A look at the four non-nuclear AIP systems currently in service or under development show these clear limitations. The modern AIP record for a submerged transit is 18 days at most. An AIP propulsion system that can provide power endurance comparable to a nuclear power plant, has yet to develop. This is not to say it cannot be done, just that it has not yet materialized. It will take decades more research and developmental technology by Canada, with commensurate investments in infrastructure and training, before these AIP SSK’s can favorably compare to the prolonged under-ice operations of any SSN. This is time that Canada just does not have.
Declaring the operation of Canadian SSNs within Canadian waters along Northwest Passage choke points, indicates that Canada has the capability to control and provide a respectable presence in all three of our oceans. Our Water Space Management (WSM) system, would clearly demonstrate to others that Canada has the will and the capacity to assert its own sovereignty and security in all of our WSM regions. This sovereignty, will become more important as global warming allows increased exploration of the Arctic seabed, and its rich resources. The WSM system is an important tool in this endeavor, but only if Canada maintains a viable submarine fleet which, by necessity, demands the timely replacement of our “ice-edge limited” Victoria Class, with a fleet of 12 modern under-ice capable SSNs. Existing AIP technologies from Germany, France or Japan, do not meet Canadian geographical demands now or in the foreseeable future for extended safe under-ice operations.
An SSN can travel the Northwest Passage, under ice-caps, from the Atlantic to Pacific in just 14 days vice over a month via the Panama Canal. Without SSNs, Canada cannot exercise authority in its waters within the confines of our own sovereign territory. This is a central requirement to any definition of national sovereignty. The issue is not simply a matter of security, but whether Canada has the tools to provide that security. To allow the USN to continue providing Arctic security on our behalf, invariably will weaken Canada’s claims to its northern waters and would be incompatible with the responsibilities that Canada has as an independent state. Past Defence Minister, Warren Beatty has said: “We can be judged sovereign, to the degree to which in the context of alliance and collective defence, we can contribute to our own National security. A Nation that “contracts out” the security and defence of its own territory is not sovereign, but a protectorate”. Many NATO allies already spend at least 2% of GDP on Defence. An annual Defence budget increase of 2% of GDP, will allow Canada to easily fund an SSN acquisition programme and finally contribute meaningfully to the NATO alliance. A Canadian SSN will do more than just support Canada’s claims to its Arctic territories. It will provide Canada with a degree of credibility that well over three decades of neglect have eroded. Canadian SSNs, will give Canada a truly balanced fleet we have been sorely missing, and pull the RCN back from the abyss within NATO.
The Modern Conventional Submarine Option:
Canadian built modern submarines will require a large ocean-going non-nuclear powered submarine that can patrol off the coasts of Canada, with prolonged forays into the Arctic, and be able to deploy worldwide either independently, or as part of a coalition force. Flexibility for fitting future equipment changes and habitability requirements must be considered in any design. This drives a modern ocean-going conventionally powered submarine to a displacement of at least 4000-5000 tons. The issue with growth is tied directly to power generation and submerged endurance. The bigger and more capable the submarine, the more power is needed to be generated to operate efficiently. But does this submarine exist?
The different forms of non-nuclear AIP, all of which require additional types of fuel, are exclusively developed by, and for, European nations with very different submarine operating areas than Canada. Notably, they are all much closer to sources of resupply than Canadian submarines conducting domestic operations. Moreover, these systems are not powerful enough to generate and clear the atmosphere of the submarine should there be incidents on board, and therefore, at their current level of technology, are unsuitable for prolonged under-ice operations.
A modern Canadian conventional submarine designed today must see a continued refinement of diesel generation technology, greater power and fuel efficiency and accompanied by better battery technology, such as lithium. This would allow increased energy storage capacity, as well as a potential for augmentation of an AIP source for unlimited submerged power generation. In short, Canada needs to develop technology that will mirror nuclear propulsion, but not be nuclear. This will require a significant financial investment. Other navies have already invested in nuclear propulsion infrastructure, so there can be no expectation of the technological investment required to meet this challenge, to come from these nations. We need to look to Canadian industry for a solution, and push for acceptable alternatives to fossil fuels that will cause a technological revolution in power, particularly in battery technology. Is this technology there today? No, not yet, but if Canada is to obtain the submarine it requires, without embarking on huge technological investment, it needs time for Canadian industry to develop the solution.
The requirement to freely operate in the Arctic is well recognized and, there are significant challenges to achieving more than seasonal ice edge forays when operating non-nuclear powered submarines. Canadian technology will be a necessary catalyst to push the type of submarine requirements that will be considered in future submarine replacements. To answer the question: Does this conventional submarine exist? The answer is not just yet, but it could, in the very near future. The question then becomes: Can Canada build a non-nuclear modern AIP submarine? Yes, but….the last time Canada built submarines was during the First World War for Britain. There is a compelling argument that with the assistance of an experienced submarine shipbuilder, Canada can produce a fleet of 12 modern AIP equipped submarines, with extensive under-ice capabilities as recommended by the recent Senate Report on National Security and Defence.
The USA is arguably building the finest ocean-going nuclear submarines in the world. However, it does not build submarines for foreign states and US submarine yards are currently fully engaged with Virginia-class SSNs and the new Columbia-class SSBNs. Moreover, politically, there is no appetite in the US to build non-nuclear powered submarines. The UK has one submarine yard, which is at maximum capacity to build the Astute-class SSNs and replacements for their Dreadnought-Class SSBNs. Germany is the largest conventional submarine builder in the world, however designs are typically under 2000 tons and suited only for European littoral states. France is producing a 4000+ton non-nuclear powered version of their Suffren-class SSN called the Short-Fin Barracuda-Block 1A for Australia. Japan has designed and produced the Soryu-Class submarine; a very large 4200+ ton AIP conventional submarine. There are a number of shipbuilders that are very capable of designing and building Canadian submarines, but almost all are European and have little expertise with larger ocean-going designs that have become the purview of the nuclear-powered submarine community. It is important for Canada to pay close attention to the Australian experience, as their submarine requirements mirror those of Canada. Australia has selected a long-range variant of the French Short Fin Barracuda Block 1A design, fitted with a USN combat system, to replace their Collins-class with 12 of these conventional submarines (several follow on Australian Barracuda-class may be nuclear powered). Australia will be gearing up this year to surpass its 2% GDP threshold for defence needs, and still has the capacity to acquire this new submarine fleet. The Australians are pushing extant technology to produce a modern conventional submarine, supported by a unique AIP system. This is certainly unconventional in approach, but will this be the right solution for Canada? Only time will tell. It is reasonable to assume that a built-in-Canada solution, supported by a foreign shipbuilder with submarine building expertise, would be most likely. In addition to building these submarines, the necessary infrastructure, particularly the supply chain, must be in place in order to support these submarines throughout their service life from project inception to initial operation capability. A submarine replacement project will reap rewards in evolving technology as well as leverage domestic capability arising from the National Shipbuilding Strategy. However, if Canada were to instead procure an “off the shelf” solution, and fail to address unique Canadian environmental requirements, these submarines will struggle to maximize their return on any significant investment.
Conclusion:
There is no doubt that Canada’s beleaguered submarine capability is in great peril, and could soon die a thousand deaths. There is no denying current Defence Department fiscal constraints, but also no denying that permanently moth-balling our submarine capability would be a major catastrophe and a critical mistake no matter which future government is in power. Canada’s allies have all agreed that a credible submarine capability brings with it enhanced flexibility to conduct military operations and the ability to collaborate with other allied states.
The Canadian government may have sorely mislead Canadians into believing that “being back,” as our Prime Minister has said, within the NATO umbrella means Canada will be participating in Peacekeeping and Peace Support operations in a much more meaningful way. If this is correct, then acquiring a strategic submarine fleet, no matter what propulsion plant is used, will be essential to this policy. The Canadian government must step up to the plate and commence the procurement process before the end of 2018 in order to judiciously acquire 12 new modern submarines for the RCN to carry out future government missions that all Canadians expect of us.
An annual defence budget increase of at least 2% of GDP, as proposed by the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence, will give the government the resources needed to build these submarines sooner rather than later, and allow Canada to easily fund an SSN/SSK acquisition programme, finally giving Canada the ability to contribute our “fair share” within NATO. A modern 12 submarine fleet replacement of the Victoria Class, with a commensurate increase in submariner strength, would then not only be possible, but any of these built-in-Canada designs either under construction or development, could be easily acquired and would be a transformative change for our country. There would be no negative effects on Canada’s defence needs in the future, or on Canada’s strong social economy. The ability to deploy its submarine forces at home or abroad from bases in Halifax or Esquimalt, has considerable appeal to a country that wishes to renew its NATO presence. Canada must seriously re-examine the concept of a Canadian SSN submarine programme. The time for such a re-examination is now.
So long as the government of the day and military leadership remain willing to accept that our country’s future strategic, political and military options will not be unnecessarily reduced by the absence of a credible submarine capability, Canada will never live up to its full potential as an influential global middle power. It is time for our Prime Minister to clearly state the government’s intentions with respect to the future of Canada’s submarine fleet and begin the process of replacing the Victoria-class with a modern, credible, SSN/SSK capability. To accomplish this under current fiscal constraints, would be difficult at best. The Victoria-class fleet must be utilized for several years longer, well past 2030 and well beyond their shelf-life, before modern submarines can be secured, unless an increase in defence spending is realized soon.
I am with you the whole way but on this issue. I am in the SSN camp. We have to do it right this time around.
Up to 12 advanced nuclear subs for a 12-decrepit-frigate navy? Seriously? You guys must be joking.
Further, the U.S.A. didn’t allow Mexico to build a decent Navy or Air Force when they wanted to, and they will prevent Canada from having them too (except for taxpayers paying for a bunch of ruinous F-35s with no AWACS or other force coordinators/multipliers.) The United States didn’t, doesn’t and won’t ever, ever tolerate a big bold boy in the neighborhood other than it even if we had the money and political will to pay for it.
Hi Tony!
If Canada is to build a modern submarine fleet, no matter what propulsion system is used to replace the aging Victoria class, a fleet of at least 12 boats will be required. 6 East Coast and 6 West. 3 per coast would be operational, 2 per coast would be in either ramp up/ramp down mode and one per coast in deep maintenance. Cheers!
Hi, David, thank you for your reply! But seriously, just remember how the U.S. killed the nuclear Canada-class project back in the ’80s. We’d be able to purchase a bunch of modern European or Japanese AIP submarines and that’s all. We were told in no uncertain terms that the United States would not tolerate another nuclear submarine navy in the Americas, except for maybe Brazil in the future … because Brazil is far enough away from Washington DC.
Hi Tony:
Canadian-built submarines will require a large ocean-going non-nuclear powered capability that can patrol far off our coasts, with prolonged forays into the Arctic. They will need to be able to withstand repeated surfacing even through several feet of ice and deploy worldwide either independently, or as part of a Canadian or coalition task force. Flexibility for fitting future equipment changes and habitability requirements must be considered in any Canadian AIP design. An AIP propulsion system that can provide power endurance comparable to a nuclear power plant, has yet to be developed. This is not to say it cannot be done, just that it has not yet materialized. It will take years more research and developmental technology by Canada, with commensurate investments in infrastructure and training, before these modern AIP SSKs can favorably compare to the prolonged under-ice operations of any SSN. This drives a modern ocean-going conventionally powered submarine to a displacement of at least 5000+ tons with re-enforced hulls and conning towers for breaking through the heavy high Arctic ice fields.
The issue with growth is tied directly to power generation and submerged endurance. The bigger and more capable the submarine, the more power generation is required to operate efficiently. The different forms of non-nuclear AIP, all of which need additional types of fuel, are exclusively developed by, and for, European states with very different submarine operating areas than Canada. Notably, their AIP SSKs are all much smaller (less than 2500 tons) and closer to resupply sources than Canadian submarines conducting domestic operations would be. Moreover, these systems are not powerful enough to generate and clear the atmosphere of the submarine, should there be ‘incidents’ on board, and therefore, at their current level of technology, are unsuitable for prolonged Canadian Atlantic, Pacific or under-ice operations. But does this submarine exist? The answer is not just yet, but it could, in the near future. The question then becomes: Can Canada build a non-nuclear modern AIP submarine? Yes, but the last time Canada built submarines was during the First World War for Britain. There is a compelling argument that with the assistance of an experienced submarine shipbuilder, Canada can produce a fleet of 12 modern AIP-equipped SSK submarines, with extensive under-ice capabilities as recommended by the 2017 Senate Report on National Security and Defence.
A modern Canadian conventional submarine must see a continued refinement of diesel generation technology, greater power and fuel efficiency, accompanied by better battery technology, such as lithium. This would allow increased energy storage capacity, and the potential for augmentation of an AIP source for unlimited submerged power generation. In short, Canada needs to develop technology that will mirror nuclear propulsion, but not be nuclear. This will require significant financial investments. Other navies have already invested in nuclear propulsion infrastructure, so there can be no expectation of the technological investment needed to meet this challenge, to come from these states. We must look to Canadian industry for a solution, and push for acceptable alternatives to fossil fuels that will cause a technological revolution in power and battery technology. Is this technology there today? Not yet, but to obtain the submarine Canada requires, without embarking on huge technological investments, we need time for Canadian industry to develop the solution. To freely operate in the high Arctic means that there are significant challenges to achieve more than seasonal ice edge forays when operating AIP submarines. Canadian industry will be a necessary catalyst to push the types of AIP technologies that must be considered in future Canadian submarine replacements.
That is not what they said — what was said was all documented. President Reagan said he would override Congress to release the technology to Canada. It was all started by Mulroney and ended by him due to budget constraints, his popularity drop in the polls and opposition within government including his own party. It all started with US Polar Ice sailing the northwest passage without asking Canada’s permission first in 1985. The United States viewed this as Canada asking for one of their tools so we could police them. What did you think they were going to say. That is why Reagan stepped up and told his underlings to settle down and he would override Congress if necessary. You have to know that Mulroney and Reagan had a great working relationship (they were the best of buddies). Also at that time Reagan was spending on the military like crazy to drive the USSR into bankruptcy and he was successful. From Reagan’s point of view giving Canada the technology to buy SSN subs only made NATO look stronger and helped the cause of outspending the Soviets to bring on the bankruptcy of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact.
Why is it that Australia did purchase 12 Modern best in class French Barracuda diesel electric with IAP system (rumors say 4 will be SSN class) to be built in Adelaide, Australia. the U.S. did not stop them to do this…why is that Tony?
Hello Sergio. Although this is a moot point as Australia is now going all nuclear with its sub replacement program (AUKUS), the Short-Fin Barracuda Block 1A class that the “Aussies” were going to buy did in fact NOT have AIP technology, although they may have that option for the future.
because the USA sees the rise of China and USA may lose control of west pacific, they need a trusted ally to assist. Plus the Aussie boats had a requirement of a US combat system, which is stupid, and the US would be monitoring proceedings. USA has always relied on RAN for ops and intel via Australian subs in South East Asia/west pacific.
Don’t think for one minute USA will sell Australia nuke boats and give Aussies a free hand. There will be strings attached, which is why buying nuke boats from UK and France is preferable
unlikely USA will sell nuke boat to Canada. USA would prefer Canada not have under ice capability. USA does not recognize Canadian sovereignty in northwest passage and will not want Canada to have ability to control it. USA have already stated this. On the record
No way any gov’t will purchase these subs, especially the nuclear ones, though we desperately need them. I would suggest 6-9 216’s or Soyru’s, and two or three nuclear-powered 25,000 ton icebreakers is the max we can hope for. That, and upgrading the Alert and Nanisivik bases (plus building something new on the Beaufort Sea on the Alaskan border) to full deep water ports with airstrips that support full-year long patrol planes. All that alone runs into the 10’s of billions in more payments that the opposition parties will fight against. But given that our enemy south of us, China, and Russia will run amok in the Arctic, we must develop these weapons and infrastructure.
Frankly, the cheapest of all would be to build a nuclear arsenal. If we could get the Germans to build us 6 Dolphin-class subs and modify the French nuclear-tipped cruise missiles for said subs, that would slow down our enemies.
Paul:
The Parliamentary Senate Committee on National Defence has already recommended that the government field a fleet of 12 AIP SSK submarines soon. The German Type 216 SSKs are just not large enough or powerful enough to break through the Arctic ice fields and would not be able to surface in those fields to refresh its air or during incidents on board. We need a bigger and more powerful boat to do the things required in all three of our oceans. We do not need nuclear-powered Polar 8 class ice breakers but I do agree that we need more than just 1 Diefenbaker Polar 8 class ice breaker. We can adequately patrol our Northern boarders with a fleet of MALE drones such as Australia is procuring. Our southern neighbours are without question our greatest allies but both Russia and China are already re-investing their military strength in the Arctic and must be seriously countered to give both of them pause. The French would certainly not give the Germans permission to build 6 nuclear Dolphin class for Canada. These new subs must be and can be built in Canada. I believe our best option would be to either acquire 10-12 French Barracuda class SSNs or 12 of the Barracuda class block 1A Subs that Australia is acquiring to replace their Collins class. Canada has already signed a NATO agreement to boost our defence spending to at least 2% of GDP by 2023. That will go a long way to relieving the pressure on our military and Canada then could easily build a fleet of 12 submarines.
Canada really needs 12 German best-in-class compact modern submarines; the ThyssendKrupp 212 latest version (with I.A.P. system) and only 27 sailors to operate (imagine the savings for our Navy budget). They are built strong, very affordable ($650 M. each x 10-12, would be cheaper than the money to maintain our 4 old, flawed Victoria model), and are stealthy, reliable, deadly, and could cover the biggest shoreline in the world (three oceans). Building two major deep sea ports in the Arctic also is a must. Norway is doing so and Australia has done already with the French Barracuda ShortFin model Subs (rumors mention 4 of the 12 model may be the Nuclear French version for long patrols). Why is Canada not doing this??? Could it be a Pentagon arm-twisting approach similar to what happened back in 1989? China is already cruising our Arctic waters! https://navaltoday.com/2018/11/28/tkms-submits-binding-offer-for-norwegian-german-type-212-submarine-construction/
It could be Canada requires requires an all nuke fleet unless it has shallow waters as well as ocean. Caution dealing with USA though, as they always have strings attached to any deal and Canada may not have the freedom they require to patrol their polar regions You will be buying direct from the country who does not recognize Canadian sovereignty in Northwest passage. Best go British or French
The Australian shortfin was not smx strictly speaking. It had no AIP. Big mistake and for other reasons, it was a disaster from the beginning.
Australia needs a mixed fleet, both nuke and conventional. It needs conventional modern subs to be stationed in Singapore, Brunei and Malaysia, where Australia has had a military presence post WW2, especially Malaysia. This is the southern entry and exit to the South China Sea, where much of the world’s commercial shipping passes through, and exit to Indian ocean, and from Indian ocean to China and Japan. These conventional subs are best suited to the narrow straits and shallow water ops. Nuclear boats are too large to operate in such confined spaces, as seen recently with a US nuke boat grounding.
Nuke boats cannot sit on the bottom for a length of time. The diesel electric boat can and they are quieter than the nuke boats and are superior to nuke boats in that environment
Nuke boats are for deep ocean sea ops and sustained high speed over long distances and for under ice polar ops, and launching large missiles where conventional boats fail by comparison.
It’s the old story. Horses for courses.
The French SSK and SSN look ideal for Canada’s needs. Three of each would be about right. The rising forces of darkness will last at least to the end of this century while the Arctic climate continues to warm. However, the challenges of budget issues pale in comparison to making the Canadian public comprehend the imperative of defence of Canada’s interests in the Arctic.
By the time Canada is ready to move forward with new submarines, solid state batteries will be available with more storage capacity than lithium ion batteries. Using solid state batteries combined with AIP technology, longer under ice periods should be possible
Canada can ill afford “limited under ice capability” when US and Canada’s adversaries, Russia and China, have unlimited under ice capability. Future Canadian submarines must be capable of operating and defending the North American continent and its northern sea approaches, the same environment as our adversaries are capable of operating, under the Arctic Ocean ice cap from our open Canadian littoral Arctic Archipelago waters, to international waters between the North Pole and Russian Arctic waters. Canada must be capable of meeting threats and force with equal force.