By Dan Middlemiss, 11 July 2024
At the NATO Summit in Washington, MND Bill Blair announced early plans to proceed with a project to replace the navy’s current submarine fleet.[1]
Some key points made by MND Blair and senior government officials include:
- up to 12 boats
- conventionally powered
- under-ice capable
- to be procured outside the NSS
- but Ottawa is seeking a Canadian sustainment component
- an RFI could be issued in the fall 2024
- no details about costs, numbers, or delivery schedules
The announcement does not move the project much beyond the ‘explore options’ caveat in the recent Defence Policy Update. Moreover, the initiative appears to be a political move to counter external criticism of Canada's ‘shameful’ defence spending status in NATO.
David Perry, a respected Canadian defence expert, “estimated that the full cost of acquiring up to 12 submarines would be up to $120-billion, and that it would take up to 15 years for the first of the new submarines to be operational.”
There was no indication of how the RCN will find crews for these boats.
It will be interesting to see the extent to which Ottawa will be able to resist industry efforts to ‘Canadianize’ and add ‘Canadian content’ to whatever design is ultimately selected.
Notes
1. Murray Brewster, “Canada confirms plan to replace submarine fleet at NATO summit,” CBC News, 10 July 2024. (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/submarine-blair-trudeau-nato-1.7259718). See also, Adrian Morrow and Steven Chase, “Canada makes submarine procurement announcement after days of defence-spending criticism from NATO allies,” The Globe and Mail, 10 July 2024. (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/us-politics/article-canada-makes-defence-announcements-after-days-of-criticism-from-nato/)
12 thoughts on “Canadian Patrol Submarine Plans Announced”
The whole announcement was nothing more than lip service. Trudeau indicated earlier this year Canada would never see 2% of GDP, now we can in 8 years. Maybe Canadians should realize there’s a lot more riding on the table than just 2%, billions of dollars in trade is as well, and our government can’t see the big picture past their noses and climate change. We’ll be lucky to be in the G7 in another couple of years. What an embarrassment this is!
Same question I raised in another discussion, are you saying that climate change is not an existential threat?
Ubique,
Les
Canada can not fix the issues of China, Russia, USA and Europe by itself. Canadians are suffering while the world around them doesn’t care. We contribute 1% of the total, while a lot of other countries couldn’t care less about it. Do you think taxing Canadians to the point they can’t eat, heat their homes, can’t afford to buy a house is the answer? No matter what Canada does will the threat go away? If it’s not collectively done together we are wasting our time. Even if we all drove battery powered cars, Canada doesn’t have enough generation or infrastructure to deliver that power.
My question if our government is worried about CO2 why aren’t we building nuclear powered subs, ships, etc? Why aren’t nuclear power stations not being built in more places? The list goes on and on.
Good morning A Canadian,
You are correct that we cannot fix climate change by ourselves. However, if we do nothing we will never have the moral authority needed to be able to get anyone else to care enough to act before it is too late.
Since the Arctic is warming far faster than other parts of the planet we will likely suffer more from climate change than some other countries. Thus, it is in our interest to lead other countries to take action.
Additionally, the money saved by Canadians by not taking action on the climate now will be meaningless if the worst effects of climate change come to pass.
I am sure that the infrastructure for electric cars will be developed once the need (and profits) are there.
Finally, I agree fully that we need more nuclear power. It is not me that needs to be convinced but those who have an emotional/mental blind spot with regard to it.
Ubique,
Les
“A Canadian”. We actually contribute 1.37+% of GDP to our defence. It’s not that as a group here, we don’t care about all starving Canadians or their social needs. We all do. But if you take a closer look at the state of Canada’s national defence issues now, you would see how far we have gone down-hill in the past several years. A 2% of GDP (minimum) is what is required to keep all Canadians safe from “The Big Bad Wolf (s)”.
Canada just does not have the technology to build our own nuclear submarines and/or ships. Nuclear subs are a very unique and special piece of kit and we do not have that kind of expertise here in Canada. We cannot buy nuclear subs from the US/UK or France as the US holds all the cards and are very particular these days as to whom they give that technology to. So it’s either AIP or LIB submarines and we need more than just 4 of them! Take a look at the Small Modular Reactors that are now being considered by Canada. Cheers!
Up to 12 doesn’t mean 12. Probably when all is said and done it’ll be 6 to 8. The Canadian Patrol Submarine Replacement Project was stood up for some time is now gathering available options. Like mentioned smoke and mirrors. It is also a forgone conclusion that there will be some Canadian content in the form of weapon systems moved from the Upholders to whatever we buy. Most likely torpedoes. Waste not want not.
Dan. This is indeed good news for Canada and the RCN. There are several countries that could build a Canadian Expeditionary 12 boat Submarine fleet. These include Germany, South Korea, Japan, France & Spain. which can or do build AIP & LIB submarines for export. They all have pros and cons but if an RFI is to be introduced by Ottawa this Fall, I believe at least three and possibly four of these Countries have will be chosen to submit bids. They include Germany’s (Type 216 HDW/212 CD AIP class); Japan’s (Taipei SS 29 LIB class); South Korea’s (ROK KSS III class) & France’s Barracuda Block 1A AIP class (same class that was first selected by Australia to replace their Collin’s class). Spain’s SS 80 class and France’s Barracuda class Block 1A will have honourable mention, but I believe in the end would be disqualified. The three front runners would be Germany, Japan & South Korea in no particular order. Each one of them are conventionally powered and have some degree of under-ice capability. Agree with your assessment that they all should be built outside of the NSS. The requirement to “Canadianize” these boats may be a sticking point and may increase the “all-in”” price in excess of the final price tag of $120B CAD for 12 boats ($10B CAD per boat-about double the price of 2 x CSC River class Destroyers) which is jaw-dropping to say the least, but probably something that Canada could handle in the end if we get above 2% of GDP. The over-arching “devil in the details” is submariner personnel strength which must increase soon. Have A Great Navy Day!
David, 120B seems like a lot even for whole lifecycle costs. What are we looking at? 1B a sub bare bones acquisition? Times it by 3 or 4 for O/M/S. 4×12=$48B
Hello Wayne. Yes, I was talking about life cycle costs and $120B CAD for 12 subs, no matter which sub wins the Request for Information (RFI), is not out-of-line. Even if 8 AIP/LIB subs finally get built, final costs could be over $90-100B CAD. These figures are not out of line when you take a look at the 15 CSC River class life cycle costs.
12 is very ambitious, hopefully at least 6.
The deal with Norway and Germany suggests the U212CD is a favourite but timeline requirements favour SK with Hanwha and Hyundai both of which have partnered up with Babcock. I don’t think any SSK has been strengthened for breaking through ice and find it hard to believe they would wander too far in from the edge. 6×50=300 not too big a commitment from a personnel standpoint
Really who cares about lifecycle costs when they will have to be paid anyways. Part and parcel of buying any platform.
The Commander RCN has recently said he wants no AIP and believes LIB tech will make up for no AIP. The RCN wants to be able to push far under the ice, significantly farther, as I was told but not complete transits. The RCN wants 8 submarines minimum.