- Reaction score
- 1,709
- Points
- 1,060
clearly you're new here
Replacing the Subs
- Thread starter Spencer100
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 22,085
- Points
- 1,260
FIFY.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,992
- Points
- 1,160
As you so rightly mentioned. The number of companies that can deliver in a decade can be counted on one hand with fingers to spare. Ask them as to what and when they can deliver and what support they can provide to build up our abilty to maintain the subs after purchase. Then look at the offerings, decide from what capabilities are on the table that most closely match our wants and needs and go with that offering, with minimal Canadianzation. My guess is the South Koreans will be the most flexible and willing to sweeten the pot with some sort of industrial offsets.
- Reaction score
- 6,066
- Points
- 1,090
I think you're going to be shocked on this one. The RCN is clearing the deck on the requirements, right down to I'll have what she's having. Now that being said election cycle can easily get in the way....
I think its time to do a part by part analysis of some of the options out there. I'm going to start with KSS III. Then 212CD from Germany. Along with my completely biased opinions!
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,992
- Points
- 1,160
I look forward to your thoughts on the matter.
- Reaction score
- 18,983
- Points
- 1,280
That’s the “Grim Reaper” of procurement…
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,702
- Points
- 1,260
I am interested in seeing this. I am a fan of submarines....but have no wish to be on one.
- Reaction score
- 6,066
- Points
- 1,090
I've been on sub tours of Sturgeon class, LA class and Victoria class. When I went on the Victoria class my friend told me to put a fake name on the sign in sheet so the Sub fleet wouldn't be able to find the interested party...
And here I thought the Press gang was a pub on Prince Street.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,281
- Points
- 1,010
FormerHorseGuard
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 437
- Points
- 760
I do not know much about subs, or warships. But I can see the numbers and I realize our Navy will have to really up their recruiting skills.
The new ships will be in serious of crews, bigger ships require bigger crews. 12 subs will need a larger crew selection.
Need numbers to be seriously increased to staff and crew. Training schools, will it be Canadian schools or are we going to need to use other NATO schools to train crews?
But sounds great today, makes the Canadian government look like they are being serious. But tomorrow when the money is due, will it be there?
The new ships will be in serious of crews, bigger ships require bigger crews. 12 subs will need a larger crew selection.
Need numbers to be seriously increased to staff and crew. Training schools, will it be Canadian schools or are we going to need to use other NATO schools to train crews?
But sounds great today, makes the Canadian government look like they are being serious. But tomorrow when the money is due, will it be there?
- Reaction score
- 6,066
- Points
- 1,090
KSS III, batch 2 submarine
Displacement: 3600 tons (surfaced)
Range: 10’000 nm
Endurance: 20 days (submerged)
Crew: 50 pers
Armament: 6 × 533 mm (21 in) with Tiger Shark heavyweight torpedoes
- 10 × VLS cells which can carry 10 × Hyunmoo 4-4 submarine-launched ballistic missile or supposedly Chonryong land attack cruise missile
- Air-independent propulsion
- lithium-ion fuel cells
Thoughts. This sub is currently in production with two being built. I have heard that there is some room at the yard for more builds. Korea is known to allow other countries to jump the queue so to speak and get their equipment before Korea does if it guarantees a military sale. They would likely be the first submarines to be available if Canada were to order them tomorrow.
The new battery technology and AIP may increase underwater endurance more than 20 days. Canada’s requirement for submarines is likely to transit to the Arctic, operate for 20 days on station and then transit back. The publicly released range seems rather aspirational, as opposed to actual.
The most interesting thing for these submarines is their ballistic missile launch capability. Hyunmoo 4-4 SLBM have approx 500nm range and a 2000lb warhead. This makes things very interesting in an expeditionary sense as now the enemy has to concern themselves with a very long range strike capability that they didn’t before.
Things that I think are concerns - are Korean subs stealthy? I don’t know, they are relatively unknown outside I’m sure submarine circles. What about torp tubes and CMS. Do those require conversion to a US/Canadian system/torpedo?
How good is their sonar equipment? Is that acceptable to RCN requirements? Also the number of sailors is 50. That is on the higher end of what’s being built right now.
Overall assessment: if you want subs cheap and fast this is the option. Also they provide unique AIP/battery options along with the SLBM capability which may or may not be something Canada wants, given these are supposed to be patrol submarines.
- Reaction score
- 18,983
- Points
- 1,280
Bigger ships do not necessarily require bigger crews.
- Reaction score
- 6,066
- Points
- 1,090
If it requires a redesign then we aren't buying a MOTS, we're buying something and changing it (again) and that adds time and cost.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,281
- Points
- 1,010
Two points here: First, I think this is the first time I have seen any submarine sporting an APU. That's interesting and makes self-docking an otherwise single screw vessel a lot easier.
Second, I don't want to change the torpedoes. The Tiger Shark is actually superior to the Mk 48, and the fact that it is foreign is the only reason the US doesn't use it. Ultimately, however, the type of torpedo you have in a submarine is usually dictated by the fire control system you use - so unless we want to change that too, we should stick with the TS.
Second, I don't want to change the torpedoes. The Tiger Shark is actually superior to the Mk 48, and the fact that it is foreign is the only reason the US doesn't use it. Ultimately, however, the type of torpedo you have in a submarine is usually dictated by the fire control system you use - so unless we want to change that too, we should stick with the TS.
- Reaction score
- 4,739
- Points
- 1,160
Is there not the same efficiencies to be had with having the same land attack missile as River Class? Would also simplify fires planning.
- Reaction score
- 2,497
- Points
- 1,190
My opinion is we should be going with the 212CD. Here's why.
First, you are still getting one of the best diesel-electric submarines in the world with the ability to stay dived on AIP for up to three weeks.
Second, and the real reason: the relationship.
The Germans are offering not just the submarine, but they (along with the Norwegians) want to enter into a strategic relationship with Canada for the training and employment of their submarines. The Germans and Norwegians are building a base in Norway that will be home to all the currently planned 212CDs, both German and Norwegian. The plan is that Norwegian and German submariners will train together, and be eligible to serve interchangeable on each other's boats. The idea is that Canada would do the same. Maybe our boats won't be permanently home ported in Norway like the German ones, but the training and interoperability would be there.
Why's that a benefit for Canada? One, it means that we can start training on those boats very soon, long before we even have any of our own boats. We can start the recruiting process now, and start building the core of the newer, larger Canadian submarine force so that it's ready as the boats start coming on-line.
- Reaction score
- 6,066
- Points
- 1,090
Tomahawk would be that missile. New Mark V tomahawk has longer range and a naval strike version is a shorter range but does go out to 500km (similar to the Korean ballistic missile). Again, changes mean cost and time. The K-VLS might not even be able to take tomahawks even with a refit.
I'm goint there with my next review. Pros and cons there as well. If we did get the 212CD it would probably be the 212CD (E) (E for expeditionary, the same submarine they bid for the Dutch program).
I love this idea and didn't know that is what the Germans and Norwegians were selling. Certainly Canada works with the Germans on things like Anti-torpedo torpedo's.
The interoperability with a NATO ally is important to those in the submarine community that I've talked to. IIRC the XO submariners course is a NATO course which combines multiple NATO navies together to train submariners. Picking a Korean submarine makes that fairly difficult (or more difficult) to do.
That being said Korea could start delivering submarines in 2028-29. Germany could start delivering submarines in 2033-34.
Last edited:
Similar threads
