By Blair Shaw, 10 March 2024
This may interest readers. It's a statement from Damen Marine themselves. Other news sources are linked below. The statement says:
Saab and Damen Shipyards Group have agreed to export the advanced Expeditionary C-71 submarines. CEO of Damen Shipyards Arnout Damen and CEO of Saab Micael Johansson made the decision this week to export together the submarine, with Canada as a potential customer.
The North American country is currently in the initial phase of a similar process to replace their diesel-electric submarines.
The C-71 Submarine has been developed for the Royal Netherlands Navy to replace the current Walrus class. This agreement between Saab and Damen doubles the long-term prospect of employment and income for the Netherlands Naval Cluster.
Additionally, it protects the vital strategic autonomy of the Dutch Naval; the single remaining self-sufficient defence industry cluster in the Netherlands DTIB.
Other sources
https://www.marinelink.com/news/damen-saab-agree-export-c-submarines-512075
23 thoughts on “Saab and Damen Export C-71 Submarines to Canada ”
Hello Blair. Certainly one sub for Canada to “consider” amongst the other half dozen stiff competition LIB/AIP subs being offered out there. I would suspect that a decision by Canada for its next generation submarine will not come until at least 2025 (or perhaps later) down the line.
Good morning Blair,
Thank you for posting this.
From what I can find out, the C-71 is a version of the Swedish A26. My impression is that this design is too small and probably too ‘short-legged’ for Canada’s Arctic and expeditionary needs.
Can anyone confirm or refute my impressions?
Ubique,
Les
Hello Les. You are absolutely correct. Although Saab/Damen offers a unique submarine (based on the A26 design), it is not quite “up-to-snuff” for Canada’s 3 Ocean needs for the future in both size and open-ocean capabilities. Something between 4-5000 tonnes submerged would be more suitable for Canada’s requirements. The numbers also need to be increased from 4 Victoria class, to at least 10 or possibly 12 “ocean-going” subs able to not just travel the world submerged, but also able to easily reach our far-north Arctic domains. Either Japanese, French or ROC boats might fit the bill better than what the Saab/Damen C-71 is offering. Cheers!
Thanks David for the confirmation and information.
Ubique,
Les
Hey David
I would love to see the numbers of boats increase, however 10-12 boats while yes an ideal number I simply cannot see it happening. In my honest opinion I do think we will be lucky to get 6.
It’s great building numbers but we have to find crew for the platforms and that’s where a 10-12 boat plan comes apart, not to mention the extra costs involved which will likely not be palatable to government.
With regards to the French design as an alternative, we need to deep sod that idea. In speaking with several Australians including my own family who were involved with the attack project I was told run away fast and don’t look back.
A26 is an advanced design, yes its domestic build is small however don’t write off the Swedes. They have experience in developing ocean going submarines indeed Australia uses them right now in the Collins class. Singapore has old Swedish boats they routinely deploy on long range missions as well.
The Swedish boats have, like the 212A, operated under ice in the Baltic – yes it’s first year ice so slightly different to multi year ice – but the principles are the same in terms of navigation .
That’s something you’re not getting with Japanese Korean or French boats.
The one key thing we do need especially to operate in the far north is AIP. You can have as many lithium batteries as you like, the fact is if you don’t couple it to an AIP source, be that a sterling engine or the fuel cell, you’re not doing under ice missions period.
You also have to have strengthened fin and casing to withstand the punch through. This is something France can’t really offer as their boats don’t operate in the far north and the Japanese boats may have issues due to fair water planes which would have to rotate substantially to avoid damage (that’s why American and British boats all have bow planes now).
You mention a 4/5,000ton displacement boat that’s quite sizeable in fact double the displacement of the current boats. There’s a reason why conventional boats tend to be much less in displacement and that’s due to power plant limitation and capabilities. The heavier and larger the boat more power that’s needed to get it through the water and thus drains batteries faster. The Chinese found that out on the Qing class experimental boat which is estimated at 6,000tons displacement.
Overall in my opinion we need to look at the KSIII from Korea and the German type 212CDE as the two front runners.
I also think we will have to lower the numbers expectations down to about 6 as well.
Thanks Blair for the education and these insights.
Ubique,
Les
Hey Les
From what I’m told they haven’t released full specification but to my knowledge and talking to a few people it’s thought it would be a much bigger version of A26 with an estimate 3,600t displacement.
From the above, I would speculatively estimate the boat would be about 75-80m LOA about 8m wide in order to put it in that weight bracket.
Propulsion – I would again speculate it’s an improved form of the Kokums AIP type with LIb batteries.
That’s just my speculation, it’s not official. I am just making an educated guess based on what is out there currently and I maybe wrong so please don’t take the above as gospel.
Hi Blair,
Thank you for this information.
If your speculations turn out to be correct, the resulting vessel could be a viable contender for the RCN.
Ubique,
Les
From what I’m been told by members of the submariner community the South Korean offer is favored.
It does have many benefits including speed of delivery and cost the platform is also up there in terms of equipment and capability.
Indeed, that preference was reflected in a Globe and Mail op-ed a few months back. It was very odd (to me, at least) to see the G&M editorial board endorse the acquisition of a specific platform (i.e., the KSS III SSK) rather than simply endorsing the retention of a submarine capability.
But would the RCN “submariner community” insist on customization – for example in the form of the installation of a different combat management system and/or compatibility with US weapons such as the Mk 48 torpedo and a notional submarine-launched Naval Strike Missile? What technical and ITAR hurdles would need to be surmounted? Does the RCN require the vertically-launched cruise missile capability inherent in the KSS-III design? How much/little would this enhance deterrence in our Northern waters or further afield?
And would government insist on domestic assembly to approve this acquisition, rather than simply long-term maintenance? (I see that Hanwha is teaming with Babcock for the latter.)
Getting to “yes”, when the defence budget is static and so many other mega-projects are vying for attention through the 2030s, is going to be a tremendous challenge. So too will be generating crews for anything beyond a one-for-one replacement of the Victorias.
Another reason for a defence policy review so that strategic priorities and capability decisions can be spelled out.
I would say like mentioned six boats in the Class. They will insist on using American weapons just like the Victoria class and the fact we can reuse them from the Victoria’s, 50/50 on vertically launched missiles. From what I am being told the submarines will be built entirely out of country.
The other issue is personnel which was always bad in the submariner community and even worse now RCN wide. Keep in mind this new acquisition is not currently funded or even in the long term planning.
The Victoria class conversions when they were acquired already had the capability to fire American weapons as it’s inbuilt into British systems. Indeed the Swiftsure, Trafalgar, and the Astutes are more than capable of taking MK48 up to mod 7 onboard (Victorias mainly use Mod 4 non ADCAP but Mod 7 ADCAP is being introduced).
The British boats are also capable of launching harpoon (We haven’t done this for many years and are deleting Harpoon from inventory)(Victoria isn’t able to fire harpoon due to deletion of the system) and we also fire Tomahawk block III & IV with the possibility of block V in the future on our boats (something the Victoria class cannot do).
The whole push of having American weapons and systems isn’t really a big one, stick with American torpedoes but also look into being able to fire tomahawk as well for added lethality.
As for VLS in a conventional submarine, it’s workable and indeed gives the country options. They are one and done systems so no reloading the tubes once fired underway this allows you to carry more torpedoes in the bomb shop.
It is worth noting that VAdm Topshee spoke in Halifax about the prospect of new submarines for the Navy on 18 October 2023.
Some of his key points:
– Canada should definitely acquire an existing submarine, with the South Korean and Japanese variants as the clear front-runners (presumably the KSS-III and the Taigei-class respectively);
– the new submarines should NOT be built in Canada; and
– Canada should resist its natural inclination to ‘Canadianize’ whatever model is selected.
While Topshee was preaching to a very pro-submarine choir, there will undoubtedly be those who will advocate that any new submarines be built (at least in part) in Canada out of concerns for ‘strategic capacity’ and security of maintenance and repair, and that some customization will be mandatory given differences in voltages and so on.
These are the conventional, but spurious, arguments behind the build-in-Canada policy Ottawa has favoured in naval shipbuilding. In the first place, Canada has gotten along reasonably well without a home-grown submarine industry, and has had little trouble in maintaining, repairing, and even upgrading its submarines. Canadian firms even provide structural and other components for US nuclear-powered submarines. Secondly, and Topshee addressed this issue directly, the RCN can and will simply develop ways around such inconveniences as voltage differences etc. A modern navy has many different adaptors and converters to deal with such minor, but potentially costly, matters.
Finally, if decisions are taken quickly – a huge assumption given the ‘peace-as-usual’ mindset of Canadian politicians – the RCN could start receiving new submarines in as little as 6 years.
In my view, the biggest obstacle to embarking on any such submarine replacement program is the critical shortfall in personnel.
I agree with some of what the CRCN says but he also talks about a lot of things not entirely accurate – frankly wishful thinking. More than likely he’ll be gone in a year with someone else on deck trying to lead the RCN with their own set of priorities and vision. While there are a few personnel looking into the requirements for new submarines and going on fact finding trips, there are no plans in the immediate future to release the statement of requirements to industry or more importantly fund the project. With our cutbacks over the next few years I think having new submarines in the next six years is overly optimistic to say the least. If we did get new boats in six years and the RCN promoted it and more importantly made it worthwhile for new submariners, we would get the people.
Hello Dan. I agree with much of what both you and VAdm Topshee have said. The Japanese Taigei class submarine nod by the Admiral is an interesting one and definitely should be seriously considered along with the ROK RS III Batch II. Although I agree with much of what Topshee has said, however, even an Admiral’s “opinion” is just that; His own opinion and nothing more. Again it will be a “political” decision in the end.
Given recent rumors about Saab losing to Naval Group in the Dutch competition, I question the viability of the Swedish proposal to a country like Canada. If the A26 could not win the Dutch competition even with major domestic support from their shipbuilding partners, I don’t see it being a relevant partner for Canada as well. The Swedes have had nothing but issues getting the A26 design construction started and there has been a sizable lapse in their own shipbuilding ability regarding submarines.
I would personally put more stock in countries like South Korea and Germany specifically for frontrunners regarding a Canadian submarine program.
Those rumours have as of this morning 15 March turned out to be true
The Dutch government has issued a statement confirming naval group won the bid
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/03/the-netherlands-select-naval-group-for-its-new-submarines/
There seems to be some excellent choices by forum members for replacements for the Victoria class SSKs. The political masters have concluded that an up-graded fleet of 10-12 AIP/LIB boats will be ideal for the RCN (6 East/6 West), with 3 boats on each coast operational and 3 boats on each coast either in ramp up/ramp down mode and one in Deep Maintenance Period (DMP). What Blair Shaw has rightly said is that right now, the RCN would be incapable of crewing 6 boats let alone 10-12 AIP/LIB subs. Recruitment will have to increase substantially over the next few years in order to build that many. I get that. I also agree with Blair that the KS III Batch II and the 212 CDE (along with the Type 216-if it had AIP/LIBs) would be the front runners for this competition. But there are also others on the market like the Spanish S-80 or even the French Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A are other options. The S-80, maybe not. The Shortfin Barracuda, possibly. I don’t envy the team assembled that will recommend to DND & government which boat will be the “best” option for Canada’s future sub fleet. Whatever sub that is finally selected, it will also be a “political” decision. In my opinion, the Saab/Damen C-71 is a good option but not what Canada needs for our future submarine “three-ocean” fleet.
Hello,
Netherlands, Sweden, and now the US are struggling with their Virginia-class replacement https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2024/03/14/navy-delays-next-generation-submarine-start-to-early-2040s/.
As a point of comparison, I suggest a look at one of our favorite competitors, the Russian Navy. Have a look at active platforms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_Navy_ships and planned ones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_Russian_Navy . Similarly, look at every other platform they produce. Look at their nuclear and space industries. Look up Zevs space tug.
Leaving aside criticism of the country, its politics, problems, etc., notice the pace of submarine development since the 1980s. Constant and persistent development of typologies and generations of platforms. Compare this to the boom/bust cycles in tthe West, where all eggs are placed in a single basket, then the basket is thrown away for a few decades.
It sounds like we are still in the same old paradigm: buy a boat, sit on it for 30 years, then spend 10 years discussing buying a new boat while the first one rusts away. Rather than arguing which boat will best fit all RCN requirements for the next half century, built a few 2,000 t boats, then build a few 3,000 t, then a few 4,500t. Establish the countrywide economic and industrial might to do that, along with developing weapon systems, then we’ll have a deterrent.
Defense is still treated like a high-end boutique item to be procured conspicuously whenever the government wants to act strong. It should rather be a seamless expression of our economic, industrial, and cultural fabric. When Canada is strong, its defence is strong. Right now, Canada is weak and can’t make a single light-bulb. It doesn’t matter how many billions we throw at Sweden, Netherlands, Germany, France, Japan, Korea, US, Turkey, Israel, Rwanda, Burundi, whatever…
Regards
I would caution you when citing Russia as a model to behold or the likes. Yes they have a nuclear industry which had to be kick started in the 2000’s by western companies. Indeed without western capital plus transfer of technology, Russian nuclear industry would be about 20 years behind where it is now easily.
I would also point out that ships maybe listed as active and fly the flag, have a crew but actually never go to sea because they can’t. This was a problem for the Baltic fleet when I was over there in 2018 – it looks good on paper but the reality is much different.
Russia takes years to build / refit nuclear submarines. If you look at their new attack submarine, the Yasen, building started in 1993 and wasn’t completed until 2014. Their first borei class submarines used left over unfinished bow sections of Akulas, again multi-year build times beyond anything in the west.
They are currently having major issues with their project 677 Lada class submarines. They actually halted production of it because of the issues and the first unit which is only about 10 years old is slated to be decommissioned.
The one boat they have done well is the Kilo simply because it’s cheap simple to build and already been in production now for 40 years. However it has limitations as a design and the Russians are well aware of them. (I was lucky enough to get a ride on Poland’s kilo Orzel)
Overall if you want Canada to build submarines, be prepared to foot the bill. We are talking hundreds of billions of $ over decades and that’s before you put a hull in the water and commission it.
Point in case, look at Australia
Now that the French boat has been selected for the Netherlands requirement, I wonder to what degree Dutch industry will contribute to the program. They have more to offer than Canada with regard to submarine technology, but it’s tough to envision this Orka class being built in the Netherlands.
If, as has been reported, the first boat is due in 2033 and the fourth by 2037, while at the same time Naval Group is building the latter trio of SSNs for the Marine Nationale, that shipyard (shipyards?) is going to be busy for some time. That could matter to Canada. If the RCN believes that the Dutch requirement for a long-range boat is similar to Canada’s, and if it wants a mature design, would it consider Orka/Shortfin Barracuda knowing that Naval Group could not likely deliver until, say, 2039?
European defense industries are so intertwined you end up with a complete mash up. With the Dutch, they don’t have much to offer overall hence why they paired with Saab of Sweden.
The Dutch Walrus class for example is Dutch built hull, French engines, French secondary sonar system (DUUX-5), British type 2026 towed array sonar, American (later French) fire control computers with MK48 torpedo as main armament. The list goes on but you get the picture.
Only one facility builds SSN and SSBNs in France however there are yards that can build conventional boats outside of this so time frame wouldn’t be an issue conflicting with French needs.