Wow, that is indeed some package…but I suspect it will give Public Works a caniption fit pointing to the nescessity of having to break this up into those individual projects. But yes maybe not specifically what some of those writing the RFI’s want but it has to be close. The only thing not covered that was suggested by others was the FA 50 fighter. (Which admittedly we don’t need but I suspect is a bridge to the KF21 which maybe we do, depending on if you believe in a aplit fighter fleet). Great piece of work Noah. (Now how well will the KS III work in the arctic….)
Thank you Bob! I plan to interrogate Mr. Coulter on the Arctic next week, among other things involving the KSS-III. I also plan to hopefully have all the info I need on the AIP and such for bith this and the 212CD for my sub post in a few weeks.
You should ask why Hanwha hasn't insisted on sailing a KSIII to Canada for a roadshow? My reading indicates that both sub offerings have indentical or very similar PEM-FC gen 4 AIP plants, and the real delta on endurance is holding tank volume and lithium power density r&d as you mentioned jn your post. The whole lithium power density research you noted is a potential power factor at play that would put the KSIII in a league of its own. Remembering that tank volume is also needed to keep discharges inboard in MSAs. I am very interested in what Polands decision will be re: ORKA replacement, it is a bit of a factor in the whole race to the production line that is fuelling perhaps some concerns on that side. Tbh the best outcome for Canada could be a some sort of quasi production and sustainment Frankenstein OEM solution between both offers making everyone happy, I mean it is not like tech exchange hasn't ever happened between the 2 major players. It'll take a number of years, but do you think Canada could be exporting submarines in the future, if the cards are played right?
Well, the first Batch II isnt available for such things yet, but never say never in the future? 😂
I can't speak exactly on the AIP systems, at least not in details. Batch II KSS gets an improved version of the current Beomhan system, same cells AFAIK, but the Hydrogen and Oxygen stores have been increases.
Type 212CD, honestly, has very little info on these things available, at least that I can confirm. TKMS has developed new fuel cells for it, theyve shown them around a bit, but I dont have concrete details, had theres a chance we never will. I plan to ask them a lot about the AIP and battery system.
Thing also is that, by the time we get our first of either we are likely to see new systems in them compared to now. So thats a bit up there. KSS-III are planned to get a new PEM-FC ~2028 I believe? Something like that.
Both companies say they could keep the current timelines with a Polish order. TKMS will have Wismar up and running by the end of the decade, and Hanwha will have a gap in their scheduling once the last KSS-III for the ROK delivers. Theres also HD HHI.
I do think it will raise questions and concerns, dont get me wrong, but for TKMS especially so will other recent orders.
After some further research it seems that both have gen 4 pem-fc, but they differ in their hydrogen storage. Different suppliers as well, so according to the caveats of AI comparsion, I have to correct my earlier comment on similarity between AIP systems, and you are totally correct to say we actually don't know exactly what each platform is going to have in its design for CPSP.. so I stand corrected. Buchanan gen 4 for hanwha and Seimens for the 212cd, also gen 4. The hanwha has solid hydride storage vs compressed gas in the tkms platform… but, again I am far from an expert on this stuff, as canada has no platforms currently powered by fuel cell to my knowledge (yet,… referring to the future of AUVs); which I hope (fingers crossed) have a quick integration as a capability for Canada in the not too distant future for the RCN.
Yeah, I have a decent idea of things, but I dont wanna say anything until I know for certain lol. That requires verification, and sadly that is a slow process but I will be discussing the systems during the Sub post.
I have a very good idea for the KSS, lot less so for 212. Saft is supposedly doing the battery cells for the 212CD, but even there I can't really talk about it cause no info, other than they're apparently new and not an evolution of an existing system.
I want numbers though lol. I want details. That might never happen for somethings, but I will certainly try.
Hanwha has versions without the VLS. Ive heard of one where they add more stores for the AIP and extra battery capacity. If we don't want the VLS than we certainly have options to replace it with something else, though I dont know if that would delay any of these timelines or how along those concepts are.
The Korean team will be beaming with glee, knowing they have a Canadian rooting for this massive modernization package to go through and revamp the ailing Canadian Defence Complex.
Frankly could've been a Hanwha for North America if they didn't sleep on their behind back in the 70s, and would've been exporting, ships, drones, subs worldwide by now, but time to learn from the Koreans and rebuild that indigenous capacity and know-how fast.
Think they should explore similar with Sweden's 🇸🇪 Gripen-Es, too
I’m curious what level of Canadianization would be unavoidable for the KSS-III, like NATO communications, American weapon systems, a modified combat management system or even habitability and electrical systems brought up to Canadian standards.
At CANSEC I asked if Tomahawk integration was feasible, and Hanwha said yes which could be an interesting option for CPSP. If that’s not a path we’d pursue, it probably makes more sense to drop the VLS altogether and reinvest the space in increased battery capacity.
So I cant actually talk about thjs a little bit lol.
Tomahawk integration im told is feasible, but also you still have to go through the integration process, amd that always carries the risk of going wrong. You really have to take that risk on Tomahawk. Certainly, Tomahawk commonality would be nice, and I believe Babcock had been looking into it? Maybe? I would have to ask around.
Other stuff is a bit less of a concern. KSS-III Batch II will use a version of Babcocks Weapon Handling System, which is already fairly common, and I'm told the Naval Shield CMS could integrate whatever torpedo we want relatively easily. I certainly plan to ask next week, however I will note that there is openness to a new Torpedo beyond the 48.
Communication I'm less worried about. KSS-III is apparently already compliant with the Cryptographic Modernization Program, will have Link 16/22, and, as far as I know, still uses Thales DIVESat. So im not as concerned on that front out of the box, so to speak.
I think it could be worth asking during your podcast interview what kind of performance gains might come from replacing the VLS with additional batteries and AIP stores. It would be really interesting to hear if they already have a rough concept or design in mind for that kind of configuration.
Why would we want to tie ourselves to a UD weapons package? Buy the weapons already designed and in service from South Korea and potentially license and build them in Canada.
I can see everything you open an email, when you read an article, how many times, what country you're in, what sites have links to my article and a break down of each articles traffic sources. I can even track of how many views everyone has brought to the site through links!
Ita actually quite impressive how much analytical data Substack just randomly collects for me.
Hahaha, oh man. That's embarrasing - I feel like I got caught stalking. I hope you take the amount of time I spend as a complement to your insight and writing!
A lot to consider by the selection teams! Back to capabilities of the sub. Is it fair to say the number one priority is for it to be the most difficult to detect, track and kill? In order to dominate the hunter/killer role in Canada’s 3 oceans. My uninformed perception, based on public info is that the 212CD is more stealthy than the KSS?
I would say there isnt one priority, but Stealth is an important factor. The 212CDs Diamond-Shaped hull is designed to scatter and deflect incoming active-sonar pulses. A lot of effort is being put into the 212CD to make it as hard to detect as possible, but I promise I'll get into that!
Such a detailed overview. Thank you very much. I wonder whether there may be a concern tying so much of our defense needs with one company but the side benefits are really impressive. Do other NATO countries use any of the Hanwha equipment?
Depends. K9 has a decent number of users (Turkey, Norway, Finland, Poland) but something like Redback its really only the Koreans and Aussies. Commonality is important, as any MEDCAV vehicle we use will be primarily of use in Europe (I actually aint a big fan of acquiring a tracked vehicle but thats a different topic)
As for the dependency on a sole manufacturer? The sad truth is that, in any case, almost all of these would go to GDLS if no one else lol. Sadly there is no escaping a core group if suppliers for us. Only a matter on if we try to create more or stick with the usual.
Sure would be great if you would explain all the short forms, as previously requested. Not all of your readers including myself, are conversant with the short form iteration you throw about.
First, much of what Hanwha proposes is in competition with GDLS on the armour side. GDLS has produced the backbone of the Army’s wheeled armoured vehicle fleet and obviously has the ear of DND. It will be the preferred supplier of any of the items that it is capable of producing. Aside from Poland, Canada would be the only NATO ally operating large amounts of S.Korean-produced equipment - and Poland is a standalone example.
Second, I don’t believe that the RCN will have the capacity to operate eight submarines, let alone 12. This represents a massive leap in logistics and maintenance burdens, and the staffing alone is a huge issue. The Hanwha submarine has capabilities (the vertical launch system, for instance) that are of no use to the RCN. Moreover, the Navy will want to mess with the vessels to ensure US torpedoes and the like. Things aren’t as simple as Hanwha would like us to believe.
I’m incredibly leery of things like this. I’m old enough to remember when Oerlikon was going to create an air defence industry from scratch, built a factory in Quebec, and then produced the ADATS system at enormous cost for a single customer (the Army). It became a political boondoggle, with accusations of corruption and political interference.
Finally, no matter how attractive this may be, my gut says that DND will prefer NATO suppliers. The relationships are already there, the supply chains are secure, and Canada is working hard to pivot to Europe. Giving a S. Korean company such a huge role in Canadian defence without a prior relationship and complete confidence might be a bridge too far for both DND and Cabinet.
I suspect you have good reason to be cynical, most of us should be as well. you aren’t the only one that remembers Oerlikon ADATS. The good news is Canada is supposed to have something like 250 qualified submariners & both of the new prospective boats only require 30-33 crew…with what 13 years to train more. (Having said that with no idea if the RCN can actually do that)
Re New Army equipment….I suspect most of us want to go with what or who we know is reliable… Given how things are & are not working in the Ukraine though modern war is changing & quickly… maybe the Poles have the right idea…add equipment quickly as you may run out of time. (A Friend who has a buddy who lives in Finland took his mandatory officer training many years ago…found himself & many others in the officer groups called back into militia service & is now attending courses once a week to get back up to speed. Interesting revalation…)
As per my earlier comment, prioritization is required. In the case of CPSP, a limiting factor is the paradigm of the requirement for 15 Destroyers. This assumption is built upon the need to go to European waters (NATO) and the Western Pacific (Indo-Pacific) in numbers to bolster NATO or 7th Fleet in times of conflict. If a strategic shift occurred that the Arctic and GIUK was a NATO commitment and the Eastern Pacific (Hawaii thru Alaska) is a sufficient prioritized step in the Indo-Pacific strategy, then a reduction of Destroyers could occur (8-10) and used as an offset for a concentration of CPSP manning and resources, which incidentally can support greater reach in times of conflict. Its a matter of prioritization!
Well, IMO, a destroyer provides far more flexibility for deployments than a submarine does. Destroyers are a visible demonstration of Canada’s resolve and foreign policy and are considerably more flexible than a submarine. Submarines, after all rely on stealth and secrecy to be effective. Downsizing the River class to enable an expanded fleet of a dozen submarines would be a horrible strategic mistake.
It’s certainly an exciting offer - the submarines are impressive.
But I think it’s far to ask if the army equipment on offer here actually fits Canada’s needs. Korea can build heavy equipment because they will fight their war in the own country. Canada’s next land war will be in Europe. Lacking the air and sea lift capabilities of a major power, we have to think lighter. The K9 is ten thousand pounds heavier than the RCH-155. The Chunmoo can’t fit in a C-130. And so on.
As important as Korea is, there’s likely greater industrial upside to integrating Canada into the European supply chain (especially Germany) for army equipment, given the scale of the spending being undertaken there over the next 5-10 years.
The US has no subs to offer us. We want a conventional submarine, and no US manufacturer has a design. The decision to stick conventional was made years ago.
Wow. Again. Solid post. There is a ton of information and thanks for throwing it all in there . Is the proposal too big to chew is my concern as you adroitly point out this proposal makes sense, and is something perhaps way to ambitious for the machine to process. Some items not even mentioned as well, and for a company that doesn't balk at investing big B amounts into infrastructure (akin to Philly) the order of magnitude on investment in in country infrastructure and skilled trades generation would definitely dwarf any existing major capital component level project. I am particularly impressed in your level of detail (specifically on the lithium developments that will likely double ksIII-cps endurance by the time Canada acquires the fiest boat is impressive and everyone with dolphins will /hould note that. The ther items like residential energy (qcell) security (vision) and knowledge transfer value are hard to ignore. That said... in order for this stuff to make it thru plinko procurement assumes all caf component commands actually work joint together and talk strategically with impact across the caf. I do note that buildings dont erect themselves, and not to mention there is a ton off projects and labour force capacity hr capital limitations that are a limiting factor here as well. Maybe we should throw a few schoosl and hospitals in, and maybe some homes built fitted with residential solar packages . Perhaps a promise of a skilled medical capital recruitment stream to land real health care improvements while they are Fin the friend shoring in canada mindset. Munitions aka cmsp card? 155mm production? Stage 1 and 2 propellant munitions factories to get that fixed as well while they are offering.. maybe they start pitching offers to takeover yards? No icebreaker mentions? Wamhat about promises to transform Canada into a real defence export engine, with real ROK level capacity targets in the medium horizon. Solid post... lots there to digest. Bring it on. Canada has a ton of REE to reclaim.
Interesting, I’m curious about the Redback offer. Are we seeking a tracked IFV? I suspect we will go all in with the Europeans. For South Korea to succeed here they will probably have to match this up with other industrial programs that the Europeans can’t match.
Reality is the biggest achilles heel for Defence in Canada is that they need to prioritize mission sets. Right now they are trying to be 'everything to everyone' - a fully capable NATO Brigade, a blue ocean Indo-Pacific capable Navy, and have prioritized projects to acquire the capabilities, yet the 'Top Priority' (ONSAF) is defence of Canada. While theuy are also doing this 9new fighter, radars, talk of AEW, talk of IADS, etc), the CAF has historically suffered from one or more of a combination of Money, People, or Government Willpower. Right ow the problem is people - its the hardest, but nothing is being prioritized to focus every available person and a tailored recruitment process to build the people requirement to meet the need of NORAD ( Air Intercept and EEZ Martime Domain Awareness (and defence)). As long as the military exec doesn't take off their hat badges this will be the failing as either money or force structure will dilute focus.
Geopolitical situation demands that we bite their hands off! Take it all, sign up for everything, Gov to Gov strategic alliance / partnership. Let’s have a big automated Hanwha tech factory making 155mm and 120mm mortar rounds for our Euro NATO partners! Do not buy a single item from the US if there is a Korean equivalent. Koreans partnership model, as per Poland and other countries would be excellent for Canada.
Excellent write-up. I think South Korea has done their homework and they are making some compelling offers.
Whether we end up with 8, 10 or 12 subs, the CPSP will be a significant expansion of our submarine fleet - has there been any discussion about acquiring a submarine tender or specialized rescue vessel?
Wow tons of info thanks. Absolutely we should benefit re industry, critical minerals, LNG etc but I feel like Hanwha is muddying the waters when they start talking about other defence capabilities. There are so many other factors to take into account with other defence capabilities both from the CAF and political points of view. Politically, Carney is keen to work with Germany and as the 3rd largest economy in the world they are important for diversifying our trading relationships. Seems very unlikely that if the Germans lost the submarine order we would also tell them to take a hike on the other capabilities as well. You also get into other constituencies lobbying - example would be GDLS in London arguing against Hanwha as they could potentially make the German based KDNS RCH 155 there. So my 2 cents is I don’t see other defence capabilities included when this is evaluated from an economic point of view.
It will be interesting to see what the Germans bring to the table.
Wow, that is indeed some package…but I suspect it will give Public Works a caniption fit pointing to the nescessity of having to break this up into those individual projects. But yes maybe not specifically what some of those writing the RFI’s want but it has to be close. The only thing not covered that was suggested by others was the FA 50 fighter. (Which admittedly we don’t need but I suspect is a bridge to the KF21 which maybe we do, depending on if you believe in a aplit fighter fleet). Great piece of work Noah. (Now how well will the KS III work in the arctic….)
Thank you Bob! I plan to interrogate Mr. Coulter on the Arctic next week, among other things involving the KSS-III. I also plan to hopefully have all the info I need on the AIP and such for bith this and the 212CD for my sub post in a few weeks.
You should ask why Hanwha hasn't insisted on sailing a KSIII to Canada for a roadshow? My reading indicates that both sub offerings have indentical or very similar PEM-FC gen 4 AIP plants, and the real delta on endurance is holding tank volume and lithium power density r&d as you mentioned jn your post. The whole lithium power density research you noted is a potential power factor at play that would put the KSIII in a league of its own. Remembering that tank volume is also needed to keep discharges inboard in MSAs. I am very interested in what Polands decision will be re: ORKA replacement, it is a bit of a factor in the whole race to the production line that is fuelling perhaps some concerns on that side. Tbh the best outcome for Canada could be a some sort of quasi production and sustainment Frankenstein OEM solution between both offers making everyone happy, I mean it is not like tech exchange hasn't ever happened between the 2 major players. It'll take a number of years, but do you think Canada could be exporting submarines in the future, if the cards are played right?
Well, the first Batch II isnt available for such things yet, but never say never in the future? 😂
I can't speak exactly on the AIP systems, at least not in details. Batch II KSS gets an improved version of the current Beomhan system, same cells AFAIK, but the Hydrogen and Oxygen stores have been increases.
Type 212CD, honestly, has very little info on these things available, at least that I can confirm. TKMS has developed new fuel cells for it, theyve shown them around a bit, but I dont have concrete details, had theres a chance we never will. I plan to ask them a lot about the AIP and battery system.
Thing also is that, by the time we get our first of either we are likely to see new systems in them compared to now. So thats a bit up there. KSS-III are planned to get a new PEM-FC ~2028 I believe? Something like that.
Both companies say they could keep the current timelines with a Polish order. TKMS will have Wismar up and running by the end of the decade, and Hanwha will have a gap in their scheduling once the last KSS-III for the ROK delivers. Theres also HD HHI.
I do think it will raise questions and concerns, dont get me wrong, but for TKMS especially so will other recent orders.
As for building here? I dont see it myself.
After some further research it seems that both have gen 4 pem-fc, but they differ in their hydrogen storage. Different suppliers as well, so according to the caveats of AI comparsion, I have to correct my earlier comment on similarity between AIP systems, and you are totally correct to say we actually don't know exactly what each platform is going to have in its design for CPSP.. so I stand corrected. Buchanan gen 4 for hanwha and Seimens for the 212cd, also gen 4. The hanwha has solid hydride storage vs compressed gas in the tkms platform… but, again I am far from an expert on this stuff, as canada has no platforms currently powered by fuel cell to my knowledge (yet,… referring to the future of AUVs); which I hope (fingers crossed) have a quick integration as a capability for Canada in the not too distant future for the RCN.
Yeah, I have a decent idea of things, but I dont wanna say anything until I know for certain lol. That requires verification, and sadly that is a slow process but I will be discussing the systems during the Sub post.
I have a very good idea for the KSS, lot less so for 212. Saft is supposedly doing the battery cells for the 212CD, but even there I can't really talk about it cause no info, other than they're apparently new and not an evolution of an existing system.
I want numbers though lol. I want details. That might never happen for somethings, but I will certainly try.
Hanwha has a Bumhan industries, not Buchanan....lol.. autocorrect.
Out of the 12;
8 can be Korean. 4 can be German subs with overlapping functions to cover for each other gaps.
And with reinforced Arctic capabilities so either can handle either 3 coasts(Atlantic, Pacific, & Arctic(
Really interested in the AIP…..not sure we need 10 VLS silos….have wondered if you took 4 out if you could add to the AIP fuel. (RE 212 CD ‘E’ version….enclosed this link …but as my French is terrible not sure how useful…perhaps of some use…. https://www.journaldequebec.com/2024/12/09/et-si-le-futur-sous-marin-du-canada-cetait-lui )
Hanwha has versions without the VLS. Ive heard of one where they add more stores for the AIP and extra battery capacity. If we don't want the VLS than we certainly have options to replace it with something else, though I dont know if that would delay any of these timelines or how along those concepts are.
Well written, Noah.
The Korean team will be beaming with glee, knowing they have a Canadian rooting for this massive modernization package to go through and revamp the ailing Canadian Defence Complex.
Frankly could've been a Hanwha for North America if they didn't sleep on their behind back in the 70s, and would've been exporting, ships, drones, subs worldwide by now, but time to learn from the Koreans and rebuild that indigenous capacity and know-how fast.
Think they should explore similar with Sweden's 🇸🇪 Gripen-Es, too
Hi Noah! Great post and very interesting. Do you have open source references or documents that can be shared regarding the package proposed by Hanwha?
Sadly no, what I have is sadly already likely not supposed to be in my possession lol
I’m curious what level of Canadianization would be unavoidable for the KSS-III, like NATO communications, American weapon systems, a modified combat management system or even habitability and electrical systems brought up to Canadian standards.
At CANSEC I asked if Tomahawk integration was feasible, and Hanwha said yes which could be an interesting option for CPSP. If that’s not a path we’d pursue, it probably makes more sense to drop the VLS altogether and reinvest the space in increased battery capacity.
So I cant actually talk about thjs a little bit lol.
Tomahawk integration im told is feasible, but also you still have to go through the integration process, amd that always carries the risk of going wrong. You really have to take that risk on Tomahawk. Certainly, Tomahawk commonality would be nice, and I believe Babcock had been looking into it? Maybe? I would have to ask around.
Other stuff is a bit less of a concern. KSS-III Batch II will use a version of Babcocks Weapon Handling System, which is already fairly common, and I'm told the Naval Shield CMS could integrate whatever torpedo we want relatively easily. I certainly plan to ask next week, however I will note that there is openness to a new Torpedo beyond the 48.
Communication I'm less worried about. KSS-III is apparently already compliant with the Cryptographic Modernization Program, will have Link 16/22, and, as far as I know, still uses Thales DIVESat. So im not as concerned on that front out of the box, so to speak.
That’s great info, thank you!
I think it could be worth asking during your podcast interview what kind of performance gains might come from replacing the VLS with additional batteries and AIP stores. It would be really interesting to hear if they already have a rough concept or design in mind for that kind of configuration.
Why would we want to tie ourselves to a UD weapons package? Buy the weapons already designed and in service from South Korea and potentially license and build them in Canada.
*Count Dooku 'I've been looking forward to this' .gif*
Apparently I can't comment with images.
I dont know why. At least add GIF support. Instead they add 5000 new metrics for me to track you all.
Oh no. You can see how much time I spend on your articles? On an individual user basis, or in aggrigate?
I can see everything you open an email, when you read an article, how many times, what country you're in, what sites have links to my article and a break down of each articles traffic sources. I can even track of how many views everyone has brought to the site through links!
Ita actually quite impressive how much analytical data Substack just randomly collects for me.
Hahaha, oh man. That's embarrasing - I feel like I got caught stalking. I hope you take the amount of time I spend as a complement to your insight and writing!
If you think you're bad, just know you got knocked out of the top ten for views about a month ago 🤣
Hahaha, that does make me feel better
A lot to consider by the selection teams! Back to capabilities of the sub. Is it fair to say the number one priority is for it to be the most difficult to detect, track and kill? In order to dominate the hunter/killer role in Canada’s 3 oceans. My uninformed perception, based on public info is that the 212CD is more stealthy than the KSS?
I would say there isnt one priority, but Stealth is an important factor. The 212CDs Diamond-Shaped hull is designed to scatter and deflect incoming active-sonar pulses. A lot of effort is being put into the 212CD to make it as hard to detect as possible, but I promise I'll get into that!
Such a detailed overview. Thank you very much. I wonder whether there may be a concern tying so much of our defense needs with one company but the side benefits are really impressive. Do other NATO countries use any of the Hanwha equipment?
Depends. K9 has a decent number of users (Turkey, Norway, Finland, Poland) but something like Redback its really only the Koreans and Aussies. Commonality is important, as any MEDCAV vehicle we use will be primarily of use in Europe (I actually aint a big fan of acquiring a tracked vehicle but thats a different topic)
As for the dependency on a sole manufacturer? The sad truth is that, in any case, almost all of these would go to GDLS if no one else lol. Sadly there is no escaping a core group if suppliers for us. Only a matter on if we try to create more or stick with the usual.
Poland, have recently bought huge numbers of K2 tanks, K9 SP Artillery, chunmoo (?) rocket artillery & FA50 fighters.
Sure would be great if you would explain all the short forms, as previously requested. Not all of your readers including myself, are conversant with the short form iteration you throw about.
Im sorry Jim! I know I forget sometimes lol. I shall remind myself better, and for you, I will go back tmmr and re-edit with full project names!
Thank you, young man:))
Outstanding contributions, thank-you.
Call me a cynic - because I am.
First, much of what Hanwha proposes is in competition with GDLS on the armour side. GDLS has produced the backbone of the Army’s wheeled armoured vehicle fleet and obviously has the ear of DND. It will be the preferred supplier of any of the items that it is capable of producing. Aside from Poland, Canada would be the only NATO ally operating large amounts of S.Korean-produced equipment - and Poland is a standalone example.
Second, I don’t believe that the RCN will have the capacity to operate eight submarines, let alone 12. This represents a massive leap in logistics and maintenance burdens, and the staffing alone is a huge issue. The Hanwha submarine has capabilities (the vertical launch system, for instance) that are of no use to the RCN. Moreover, the Navy will want to mess with the vessels to ensure US torpedoes and the like. Things aren’t as simple as Hanwha would like us to believe.
I’m incredibly leery of things like this. I’m old enough to remember when Oerlikon was going to create an air defence industry from scratch, built a factory in Quebec, and then produced the ADATS system at enormous cost for a single customer (the Army). It became a political boondoggle, with accusations of corruption and political interference.
Finally, no matter how attractive this may be, my gut says that DND will prefer NATO suppliers. The relationships are already there, the supply chains are secure, and Canada is working hard to pivot to Europe. Giving a S. Korean company such a huge role in Canadian defence without a prior relationship and complete confidence might be a bridge too far for both DND and Cabinet.
I suspect you have good reason to be cynical, most of us should be as well. you aren’t the only one that remembers Oerlikon ADATS. The good news is Canada is supposed to have something like 250 qualified submariners & both of the new prospective boats only require 30-33 crew…with what 13 years to train more. (Having said that with no idea if the RCN can actually do that)
Re New Army equipment….I suspect most of us want to go with what or who we know is reliable… Given how things are & are not working in the Ukraine though modern war is changing & quickly… maybe the Poles have the right idea…add equipment quickly as you may run out of time. (A Friend who has a buddy who lives in Finland took his mandatory officer training many years ago…found himself & many others in the officer groups called back into militia service & is now attending courses once a week to get back up to speed. Interesting revalation…)
As per my earlier comment, prioritization is required. In the case of CPSP, a limiting factor is the paradigm of the requirement for 15 Destroyers. This assumption is built upon the need to go to European waters (NATO) and the Western Pacific (Indo-Pacific) in numbers to bolster NATO or 7th Fleet in times of conflict. If a strategic shift occurred that the Arctic and GIUK was a NATO commitment and the Eastern Pacific (Hawaii thru Alaska) is a sufficient prioritized step in the Indo-Pacific strategy, then a reduction of Destroyers could occur (8-10) and used as an offset for a concentration of CPSP manning and resources, which incidentally can support greater reach in times of conflict. Its a matter of prioritization!
Well, IMO, a destroyer provides far more flexibility for deployments than a submarine does. Destroyers are a visible demonstration of Canada’s resolve and foreign policy and are considerably more flexible than a submarine. Submarines, after all rely on stealth and secrecy to be effective. Downsizing the River class to enable an expanded fleet of a dozen submarines would be a horrible strategic mistake.
It’s certainly an exciting offer - the submarines are impressive.
But I think it’s far to ask if the army equipment on offer here actually fits Canada’s needs. Korea can build heavy equipment because they will fight their war in the own country. Canada’s next land war will be in Europe. Lacking the air and sea lift capabilities of a major power, we have to think lighter. The K9 is ten thousand pounds heavier than the RCH-155. The Chunmoo can’t fit in a C-130. And so on.
As important as Korea is, there’s likely greater industrial upside to integrating Canada into the European supply chain (especially Germany) for army equipment, given the scale of the spending being undertaken there over the next 5-10 years.
Noah,
Have you been seeing the various YouTube and TicTok videos about the US offering us Submarines and Canada snubbing them ?
It just screams disinformation campaign. Because quite frankly I haven't heard anything about it except for these obvious AI generated videos.
The US has no subs to offer us. We want a conventional submarine, and no US manufacturer has a design. The decision to stick conventional was made years ago.
Agree, and to add -US is under a major pressure to pull their sub build tempo (Virginia's and Columbias) from 1.3 per yr to 3.
Oh yes, I am quite aware .
I just find this blatant attempt to spread disinformation rather interesting.
I am rather curious as to the source quite frankly.
Wow. Again. Solid post. There is a ton of information and thanks for throwing it all in there . Is the proposal too big to chew is my concern as you adroitly point out this proposal makes sense, and is something perhaps way to ambitious for the machine to process. Some items not even mentioned as well, and for a company that doesn't balk at investing big B amounts into infrastructure (akin to Philly) the order of magnitude on investment in in country infrastructure and skilled trades generation would definitely dwarf any existing major capital component level project. I am particularly impressed in your level of detail (specifically on the lithium developments that will likely double ksIII-cps endurance by the time Canada acquires the fiest boat is impressive and everyone with dolphins will /hould note that. The ther items like residential energy (qcell) security (vision) and knowledge transfer value are hard to ignore. That said... in order for this stuff to make it thru plinko procurement assumes all caf component commands actually work joint together and talk strategically with impact across the caf. I do note that buildings dont erect themselves, and not to mention there is a ton off projects and labour force capacity hr capital limitations that are a limiting factor here as well. Maybe we should throw a few schoosl and hospitals in, and maybe some homes built fitted with residential solar packages . Perhaps a promise of a skilled medical capital recruitment stream to land real health care improvements while they are Fin the friend shoring in canada mindset. Munitions aka cmsp card? 155mm production? Stage 1 and 2 propellant munitions factories to get that fixed as well while they are offering.. maybe they start pitching offers to takeover yards? No icebreaker mentions? Wamhat about promises to transform Canada into a real defence export engine, with real ROK level capacity targets in the medium horizon. Solid post... lots there to digest. Bring it on. Canada has a ton of REE to reclaim.
Interesting, I’m curious about the Redback offer. Are we seeking a tracked IFV? I suspect we will go all in with the Europeans. For South Korea to succeed here they will probably have to match this up with other industrial programs that the Europeans can’t match.
Reality is the biggest achilles heel for Defence in Canada is that they need to prioritize mission sets. Right now they are trying to be 'everything to everyone' - a fully capable NATO Brigade, a blue ocean Indo-Pacific capable Navy, and have prioritized projects to acquire the capabilities, yet the 'Top Priority' (ONSAF) is defence of Canada. While theuy are also doing this 9new fighter, radars, talk of AEW, talk of IADS, etc), the CAF has historically suffered from one or more of a combination of Money, People, or Government Willpower. Right ow the problem is people - its the hardest, but nothing is being prioritized to focus every available person and a tailored recruitment process to build the people requirement to meet the need of NORAD ( Air Intercept and EEZ Martime Domain Awareness (and defence)). As long as the military exec doesn't take off their hat badges this will be the failing as either money or force structure will dilute focus.
Geopolitical situation demands that we bite their hands off! Take it all, sign up for everything, Gov to Gov strategic alliance / partnership. Let’s have a big automated Hanwha tech factory making 155mm and 120mm mortar rounds for our Euro NATO partners! Do not buy a single item from the US if there is a Korean equivalent. Koreans partnership model, as per Poland and other countries would be excellent for Canada.
Excellent write-up. I think South Korea has done their homework and they are making some compelling offers.
Whether we end up with 8, 10 or 12 subs, the CPSP will be a significant expansion of our submarine fleet - has there been any discussion about acquiring a submarine tender or specialized rescue vessel?
Wow tons of info thanks. Absolutely we should benefit re industry, critical minerals, LNG etc but I feel like Hanwha is muddying the waters when they start talking about other defence capabilities. There are so many other factors to take into account with other defence capabilities both from the CAF and political points of view. Politically, Carney is keen to work with Germany and as the 3rd largest economy in the world they are important for diversifying our trading relationships. Seems very unlikely that if the Germans lost the submarine order we would also tell them to take a hike on the other capabilities as well. You also get into other constituencies lobbying - example would be GDLS in London arguing against Hanwha as they could potentially make the German based KDNS RCH 155 there. So my 2 cents is I don’t see other defence capabilities included when this is evaluated from an economic point of view.
It will be interesting to see what the Germans bring to the table.