It's official, the Canadian Department of Defense has launched the competition to acquire 12 new conventionally powered Canadian submarines, to replace the 4 Victoria-class submarines deployed by the Royal Canadian Navy since the early 2000s, after serving several years in the British Royal Navy.
This is undoubtedly the most important competition of the last 10 years, with the Australian competition, initially involving eight ships, which was won in 2015 by Naval Group, before being cancelled by Canberra in favour of the SSN-AUKUS nuclear attack submarine programme.
From then on, the six submarine manufacturers of the Western sphere are today in the ranks, to position themselves on this competition which could well influence the world hierarchy in this field, for several decades.
What are the six proposed submarine models, their characteristics, but above all, to what extent do they meet the needs of the Royal Canadian Navy?
In this section:
The Royal Canadian Navy wants to replace its four Victoria-class submarines with 4 new ships
It has now been three years since the Canadian Department of Defense announced its intention to launch a competition for the replacement of the four Victoria-class submarines. These ships, which entered service with the Royal Navy in the early 90s, only joined the Royal Canadian Navy in the early 2000s, but are now showing their age.
However, while four submarines seemed to meet Ottawa's needs since the end of the Cold War, new Russian claims in the Arctic and the militarization of this now contested maritime space have led Canadian authorities to revise upwards their needs in terms of submarine fleet.
So, it is not four, nor even six or eight submarines that are to be ordered for the Royal Canadian Navy, but twelve, to protect the interests of this country with 243 km of coastline, far ahead of Indonesia's 000 km, or Russia's 55 km of coastline.
This situation had already led Ottawa, four years ago now, to order 15 new frigates, derived from the British Type 26 model, an imposing 7000-ton ship, equipped with advanced anti-submarine warfare means.
Canadian authorities announced at the end of last week that they had sent Western manufacturers a request for information, to be returned before November 18, in order to participate in this competition. for 12 new conventionally powered submarines with Arctic capabilities, a contract estimated by Ottawa at 40 to 65 billion euros (60 to 100 billion Canadian dollars), over its entire lifespan.
The 6 models in the running for the Canadian competition
There is little doubt that 5 of the 6 Western manufacturers of conventional submarines will respond to this RFI (Request for Information) sent by the Canadian Ministry of Defense, so decisive is the market.
There are 75% of this article left to read, Subscribe to access it!
The Classic subscriptions provide access to
articles in their full version, and without advertising,
from €1,99. Subscriptions Premium also allow access to archives (articles over two years old)
BLACK FRIDAY : – 20% on new monthly and annual Premium and Classic subscriptions, with the code MetaBF2024, until 03/12/24
Sorry. I'll stop with AI, but it goes along with your analysis.
Question about price.
Kind regards.
"Naval Group's offer, being 15% lower than that of other competitors, gives a considerable strategic advantage to the French manufacturer. This would allow Canada to:
Obtain high-tech submarines at a reduced cost.
Strengthen its industrial capacity through a potential transfer of technology.
Remain aligned with its strategic alliances within NATO and AUKUS, while maintaining a certain diplomatic flexibility.
Ultimately, Canada may choose NG to benefit from superior value for money, while AUKUS may see an opportunity to improve Canadian naval capabilities at a lower cost, while continuing to promote cooperation with France in complementary sectors.
It's worth what it's worth, but here's the AI's answer to the question about the advisability of NG entering the race.
I'm not far from thinking so.
Thank you for your attention to my comments. Kind regards.
“Naval Group must indeed be cautious. Although French technology and expertise in the submarine field are unquestionable, the ongoing geopolitical game could significantly reduce the chances of success. Entering a race where the cards are already potentially biased in favor of another supplier, due to alliances such as AUKUS, could prove to be a trap. In this context, Naval Group’s position would be to carefully weigh the political risks and real opportunities before deciding whether to commit resources to this project.”
I have no sympathy for the USSR. I am simply a Gaullist. Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals
I know this well, because I am starting to know you through comments 😉
But I think you are fighting the wrong battle here. Not participating would make it easier to fight what you want to fight.
Moreover, de Gaulle never showed himself to be hostile to exporting to his allies, on the contrary.
We can regret seeing all these countries turn to the f35, or the Patriot. But in the end, all we can do is be even better, commercially, politically, militarily, until this non-choice becomes a choice again.
And we must keep in mind that the Japanese have never exported heavy weapons, especially locally produced ones. I doubt that they will go through with the call for tenders, because their defense industry is not sized for that.
Afterwards, the United States can weigh up to a certain point, but they will not lose feathers in this matter, knowing that they have nothing to gain from it, if not the assurance of having Ottawa in the second AUKUS pillar.
We should therefore not overestimate the extent of their influence, if the price advantage is very clear.
For reasons that escape me, I cannot respond directly to your comments. I am therefore adding this text. It is not a question of disputing the 70 GI deaths of the US European campaign. It is about the geopolitical situation where the Europeans have invested part of their budget in financing the F000, whose future seems to be called into question by the US itself. Denying the US's desire to eliminate any competitive Western capacity contrary to the interests of US military industries does not seem appropriate to me.
In response to the
Accuracy. I am in no way a supporter of the USSR.
American losses in Normandy (1944):
Total American casualties during the Battle of Normandy: approximately 125 soldiers killed, wounded, or missing, including approximately 000 to 29 dead.
Soviet losses on the Eastern Front:
Soviet losses throughout the war, particularly on the Eastern Front against Nazi Germany, were among the highest in military history.
Soviet military losses:
About 8,7 million Soviet soldiers died during the war.
Including the wounded and prisoners, total military losses exceed 11 million.
Soviet civilian casualties:
An estimated 17 to 20 million Soviet civilians died as a result of fighting, massacres, famine, and deportations. The siege of Leningrad, the executions of civilians by German forces, and the suffering caused by the occupation are examples of the tragic conditions experienced by the Soviet population.
It is not about the fear of not winning, the dice are loaded. We must prevent the programmed Japanese winners from proclaiming that they are better than our productions. Period. Do you take them for amateurs? The gust becomes a worry for them. Mdba, Thales and tuti quantity. Open your eyes.
By refusing to participate, Naval Group could set a precedent for other companies that might also choose to walk away from processes deemed unfair, creating an alternative model for international cooperation.
In my opinion, humiliating Canada and its coreligionists by refusing to participate will strengthen the position of the naval group and France with countries that do not want to be affiliated with any clan.
First, I doubt this will humiliate anyone. He's the client, and he'll just take note of Paris' refusal to participate, nothing more. As for the other 5 participants, they'll just be happy to no longer have NG in their hands.
Then, even if that were the case, what reason would we have to want to humiliate Canada? We ourselves belong to these clans, like NATO, the European Union. Twice, they crossed the Atlantic to get us out of trouble. I see no reason to treat Ottawa with any reserve, or with the slightest contempt, quite the contrary.
Finally, I am certain that such a position would not strengthen the position of France and Naval Group in any country. On the contrary, it would tend to give a disastrous image of the country and its way of doing things, including with its allies.
50 submarines in 2035:
With such a large potential market for conventional submarines, Naval Group has a valuable opportunity to strengthen its position on the international market. By distancing itself from the constraints of Anglo-Saxon partnerships and offering innovative and tailored defense solutions, the company can not only meet the growing demand, but also strengthen its image as a reliable and independent partner. Any comments?
I don't see the point, at this level of the competition, in not playing its card for Naval Group, especially since it is in a dominant position. If things don't go normally, it will have every latitude to do like Dassault, and withdraw. But as it stands, these are only suppositions without any real basis, other than " Canadians are close to Americans and Americans are mean to us"I can't see NG missing out on a $50 billion market on such a tiny basis.
We will have to be vigilant, obviously. More so than they were in Australia. But we must not be frozen by the fear of not winning.
I think there are only blows to be taken. The Anglo-Saxons will be happy, whatever the price, to humiliate the French and especially to reject their technology, all the more threatening as it is effective. A Japanese contract is certainly the conclusion planned by aukus. It is naive to believe that the United States will let French SM prosper. In any case, not in their zone of influence. Dassault had folded before participating in the fishing competition. I no longer remember the name of the Australian who wrote a book on the ejection of the naval group, emitting the hypothesis that the objective was to pirate the propulsion of the barracuda. Not sure that he is right, but that one can emitted this hypothesis shows that all blows are allowed.
Very interesting article, thank you.
I took the liberty of removing the price criterion which, as explained in the article, can be very largely influenced by political will.
Considering only the technical criteria, Naval Group and TKMS would be neck and neck (advantage of 1 point for Naval, with or without weighting).
With American support in the balance, it will be very close.
It is, indeed, a "variable" parameter, but it is also decisive. In this case, it can influence the effort required for a state to even just fall into line. And if the price difference were €1,5 billion for 4 submarines in the Netherlands, we can quickly imagine that it would reach €4,5 to €5 billion for 12 ships, simply to fall into line. I do not see a state justifying such expenditure in its public finances.
If I were a naval group, I would go my own way. Do you speak English? No. Sorry sir!😊
I doubt he would pass up such a deal...
Impossible, especially since the sub is already fully developed and financed. Losing or winning doesn't matter, but we have to go for it.