Agreed. I suspect there is geopolitical factors involved. If we pick the KSS III, our economic involvement with SK should take off, and that will naturally focus more of our attention on the Pacific. That would obviously benefit Australia considerably. Australia is well aware that we are going to be pulled in 2 different directions once we have our new fleet operational, and doesn't want the Pacific to come 2nd in our priorities. Doesnt render any of his comments invalid, but it's always good to be aware of a source's bias.
I read into that too, but I'm not sure if his argument about operating in the Baltic holds water, since the subs are also as likely to operate at equally shallow depths in the Arctic Archipelago. But just from a risk standpoint, the KSS-III seems to be a less riskier option than the 212CD.
This was a great article, it's always validating to hear the perspective of someone who has valid experience. Not super in depth, but still full of wisdom. The shortage of submariners has been raised before, but I have a feeling that it will a lot worse than we think at some point. It will probably be a big news story at some point, especially if we get the new subs sooner, rather than later, as we would with Hanwha.
Is it just me or does anyone else reading between the lines that it seems like he's hinting towards the South Korean Sub as the better fit?
should push the KSS3 at home to and dump the Collins LOTE. Then Canada and Australia could both run the same SSK along with SK itself
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/hedging-our-bets-a-japanese-option-for-managing-risk-in-the-aukus-optimal-pathway/
first 4 subs to Canada then we can alternate with AUS one for one while we build up personnel
I got that impression as well.
Agreed. I suspect there is geopolitical factors involved. If we pick the KSS III, our economic involvement with SK should take off, and that will naturally focus more of our attention on the Pacific. That would obviously benefit Australia considerably. Australia is well aware that we are going to be pulled in 2 different directions once we have our new fleet operational, and doesn't want the Pacific to come 2nd in our priorities. Doesnt render any of his comments invalid, but it's always good to be aware of a source's bias.
I don't think it was very subtle at all. From their perspective, the KSS-3 is the preferable option for Canada by a country mile.
I read into that too, but I'm not sure if his argument about operating in the Baltic holds water, since the subs are also as likely to operate at equally shallow depths in the Arctic Archipelago. But just from a risk standpoint, the KSS-III seems to be a less riskier option than the 212CD.
This was a great article, it's always validating to hear the perspective of someone who has valid experience. Not super in depth, but still full of wisdom. The shortage of submariners has been raised before, but I have a feeling that it will a lot worse than we think at some point. It will probably be a big news story at some point, especially if we get the new subs sooner, rather than later, as we would with Hanwha.