Hopefully these talks about splitting the procurement can be put to rest, the Government seems to be developing an annoying habit recently of trying to split up every single major procurement contests winner into multiple bidders. Submarines, fighters, MLRS, etc. Companies are not going to be especially attracted to Canada if all of our procurements turn into back patting consolation prize fest where nobody is allowed to actually be the winner. We're setting ourselves up for potential logistical nightmares with what I feel is very short sighted political goals in mind.
The PMO's thinking is pretty transparent here — they want both industrial packages and both strategic relationships. That's not unreasonable given where the world is right now.
But 6+6 doesn't get you there. Both partners bid on up to 12 boats. Six each feels like a consolation prize and both industrial packages probably shrink to match.
What about 8+8? Eight KSS-IIIs at Esquimalt with a dedicated west coast sustainment hub, eight 212CDs at Halifax with their own. Each coast runs a single platform type, clean logistics, OEM support on-site. A firm 8 is a serious enough order that both partners have reason to keep their full investment commitments on the table. The RCN gets 16 boats instead of 12, delivered faster than a single-source 12-boat program.
The PMO gets both partnerships. The RCN gets more than it asked for. You pay more for 16 than 12, obviously — but if you're splitting the order anyway, at least do it at a number that justifies the decision.
Eight would be better, however it still will be a bit of an annoyance since the Feds have been throwing out twelve. The other issue, as always, is that adding an extra four subs buts a fairly significant addition to the navy they might not have been planning. I plan to talk about it today or tomorrow!
Pretty sure all the economic benefits on offer from both Hanwa and TKMS are based on therm producing all 12 Subs, buy less, get less will certainly be stated in any contract.
Getting a split procurement decision seems like such an Ottawa thing to do, hoping it's untrue for my own sake. Was really looking forward to your take on the Globe and Mail article. Great read yet again, Noah.
You'll be surprised. The 212A has fantastic range and endurance for its size. Granted, the Li-Ion and AIP combo is a significant step up from the Lead-Acid era of AIP subs. Its really quite insane how muchnof a leap in capability they provide
Such a shame. It’s really too bad they didn’t consider offering something like delivering the first 6 as standard CDs for the Atlantic, then using the time before the delivery of the final 6 to engineer and transition to a stretched expeditionary variant for the Pacific.
I feel like the 212CD range is only speculation as there is no 212CD actually produced and operational right now to get those specifications under real world conditions.
From all the information online, Both boats are almost identical and the difference in length is attributed to the VLS section which is about 15ish m long from what I read. If you took that out they would be within meters of each other.
Both quality boats…. But a small point…the ksIII lists 21 days of aip fuel & while solid numbers aren’t out on the 212cd….google has grabbed 41 days from somewhere….big difference *IF* its true…. Any real world number on that Noah? Lastly I originally thought they had to offer the cde version based on an online version of the rfi…..which said subs had to be a minimum of 3000 tons….maybe one of the things revised.
Neither company will give the actual endurance publicly for security reasons. Not even to me! I can say though that both can push past six weeks with their modern AIP and Li-Ion systems. Both more than meet our needs.
Li-Ion batteries are a modern marvel that really takes the modern Diesel submarine to another level of capability. That will only get better as commercial battery technology improves.
Noah just had a chance to listen to Canadian vice admiral Chris Robinson on our subs (highly recomended) (some csps comments about 30 min mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTv9fMq32kg
Great write up Noah. You are right that we can not go wrong with either choice. The 1 in 4 rule Kevin mentioned in the comments has always perplexed me and perhaps you can shed some light having talked with Topshee. I understand the rule perse but am confused by the implementation for RCN. There was a slide I remember seeing that had (out of 12 subs total) 3 operating, 3 training (normal readiness), and 6 in a maintenance cycle. So 1 in 4 operational. How does this work with 6 on each coast. Sometimes 2 operational on west coast, sometimes 2 operational on east coast. Seems like it would work better with 8 on each coast or am I missing something?
Splitting the fleet makes no sense in many ways but most of all there is nothing but downsides to it. Two seperate lines of training for operators and maintenance, lack of the ability of crew transfer from one coast to the other. Not even mentioned is the 1 in 4 rule where you'd need 4 submarines of a class to have one operational. So you'd need to either split the fleet unevenly say 4 of one type and 8 of the other or buy 8 of each to ensure 2 of each class are operational at a time. Not a good idea in any way IMHO. Let's hope this is just a bad rumour.
Both excellent boats and good companies. I prefer the one that can replace our current fleet and expand capacity asap. The SK bid is attractive because we are dealing with an actual boat in the water and they have a clear path in development. The Germans have a product optimized for the environment and a strong customer base. Regardless, exciting times for the RCN.
Very exciting! Part of what I wanted to do was highlight wveryones strengths here. I think its good to sometimes present the best of platforms over always analysing. Gives a chance to see strengths and ehats going on without the rest
Both good subs, we really can't go wrong. Personally I prefer the 212cd due to increased stealth, which is ultimately what a sub is all about. My demands would be for an early spot in line, two before 2035 and a confirmed pathway & participation in the Tyrfing for a long range strike capability.
My only hope is that the awarding of a contract is done extremely above board, and doesn’t get dragged into years of litigation over miss-managed decision making.
Could the revised RFI have anything to do with a recent media release stating no matter which submarine Canada goes with they will be modified to incorporate an upward facing sonar and other changes done here at home (like what Portugal has recently done to theirs) to enable safe operations and overhead ice detection in the Arctic.
No. The changes we're primsrily do to none of the subs being able to meet at least one of the requirements. I don't know exactly what it was, but after some discussions it was decided only the 212CD and KSS-III quakified.
Now granted, that is part of an RFIs job, to engage and get a word from industry on whats possible. In this regafd it did it's job!
Hopefully these talks about splitting the procurement can be put to rest, the Government seems to be developing an annoying habit recently of trying to split up every single major procurement contests winner into multiple bidders. Submarines, fighters, MLRS, etc. Companies are not going to be especially attracted to Canada if all of our procurements turn into back patting consolation prize fest where nobody is allowed to actually be the winner. We're setting ourselves up for potential logistical nightmares with what I feel is very short sighted political goals in mind.
The PMO's thinking is pretty transparent here — they want both industrial packages and both strategic relationships. That's not unreasonable given where the world is right now.
But 6+6 doesn't get you there. Both partners bid on up to 12 boats. Six each feels like a consolation prize and both industrial packages probably shrink to match.
What about 8+8? Eight KSS-IIIs at Esquimalt with a dedicated west coast sustainment hub, eight 212CDs at Halifax with their own. Each coast runs a single platform type, clean logistics, OEM support on-site. A firm 8 is a serious enough order that both partners have reason to keep their full investment commitments on the table. The RCN gets 16 boats instead of 12, delivered faster than a single-source 12-boat program.
The PMO gets both partnerships. The RCN gets more than it asked for. You pay more for 16 than 12, obviously — but if you're splitting the order anyway, at least do it at a number that justifies the decision.
Eight would be better, however it still will be a bit of an annoyance since the Feds have been throwing out twelve. The other issue, as always, is that adding an extra four subs buts a fairly significant addition to the navy they might not have been planning. I plan to talk about it today or tomorrow!
Pretty sure all the economic benefits on offer from both Hanwa and TKMS are based on therm producing all 12 Subs, buy less, get less will certainly be stated in any contract.
Getting a split procurement decision seems like such an Ottawa thing to do, hoping it's untrue for my own sake. Was really looking forward to your take on the Globe and Mail article. Great read yet again, Noah.
I dont believe it myself. There seems to be one person pushing this idea heavily and keeping it alive
Haha “8 additional personnel (riders) in permanent bunks” we all know what / how “special” these riders are hehe 😉
Just Timmy and the Gang going for a ride.
Unlike me.
Lmao…. Just need to swim in the drink before they can sneaky sneaky on land
By far the most exciting procurement program I've ever seen!
Either sub will be a huge capability boost for the RCN, but Im personally cheering for team Korea!
I favor the KSS-III as well, but I have to admit that both boats are seriously impressive.
Can't lose either way IMO
It will be interesting to see what each offers for the precision land attack capability.
Also I'm surprised the 212CD met the range and endurance requirements given its smaller size. Or does the KSS-III greatly exceed the minimum?
You'll be surprised. The 212A has fantastic range and endurance for its size. Granted, the Li-Ion and AIP combo is a significant step up from the Lead-Acid era of AIP subs. Its really quite insane how muchnof a leap in capability they provide
Well that's cool to hear!
Makes you wonder how much greater the performance was going to be for the stretched 212CD-Expeditionary they had offered for the Netherlands.
I wonder too. Sadly the CD E seems fairly dead as a concept.
Such a shame. It’s really too bad they didn’t consider offering something like delivering the first 6 as standard CDs for the Atlantic, then using the time before the delivery of the final 6 to engineer and transition to a stretched expeditionary variant for the Pacific.
I feel like the 212CD range is only speculation as there is no 212CD actually produced and operational right now to get those specifications under real world conditions.
From all the information online, Both boats are almost identical and the difference in length is attributed to the VLS section which is about 15ish m long from what I read. If you took that out they would be within meters of each other.
Both quality boats…. But a small point…the ksIII lists 21 days of aip fuel & while solid numbers aren’t out on the 212cd….google has grabbed 41 days from somewhere….big difference *IF* its true…. Any real world number on that Noah? Lastly I originally thought they had to offer the cde version based on an online version of the rfi…..which said subs had to be a minimum of 3000 tons….maybe one of the things revised.
Neither company will give the actual endurance publicly for security reasons. Not even to me! I can say though that both can push past six weeks with their modern AIP and Li-Ion systems. Both more than meet our needs.
Li-Ion batteries are a modern marvel that really takes the modern Diesel submarine to another level of capability. That will only get better as commercial battery technology improves.
Noah just had a chance to listen to Canadian vice admiral Chris Robinson on our subs (highly recomended) (some csps comments about 30 min mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTv9fMq32kg
Great write up Noah. You are right that we can not go wrong with either choice. The 1 in 4 rule Kevin mentioned in the comments has always perplexed me and perhaps you can shed some light having talked with Topshee. I understand the rule perse but am confused by the implementation for RCN. There was a slide I remember seeing that had (out of 12 subs total) 3 operating, 3 training (normal readiness), and 6 in a maintenance cycle. So 1 in 4 operational. How does this work with 6 on each coast. Sometimes 2 operational on west coast, sometimes 2 operational on east coast. Seems like it would work better with 8 on each coast or am I missing something?
Splitting the fleet makes no sense in many ways but most of all there is nothing but downsides to it. Two seperate lines of training for operators and maintenance, lack of the ability of crew transfer from one coast to the other. Not even mentioned is the 1 in 4 rule where you'd need 4 submarines of a class to have one operational. So you'd need to either split the fleet unevenly say 4 of one type and 8 of the other or buy 8 of each to ensure 2 of each class are operational at a time. Not a good idea in any way IMHO. Let's hope this is just a bad rumour.
Both excellent boats and good companies. I prefer the one that can replace our current fleet and expand capacity asap. The SK bid is attractive because we are dealing with an actual boat in the water and they have a clear path in development. The Germans have a product optimized for the environment and a strong customer base. Regardless, exciting times for the RCN.
Very exciting! Part of what I wanted to do was highlight wveryones strengths here. I think its good to sometimes present the best of platforms over always analysing. Gives a chance to see strengths and ehats going on without the rest
Both good subs, we really can't go wrong. Personally I prefer the 212cd due to increased stealth, which is ultimately what a sub is all about. My demands would be for an early spot in line, two before 2035 and a confirmed pathway & participation in the Tyrfing for a long range strike capability.
TKMS says they can increase the timelines through reorganizing slots amd new.capacity. I think we'll hear more soon
Excellent article Noah. Thanks for addressing the split (and talking me off the ledge so to speak).
My only hope is that the awarding of a contract is done extremely above board, and doesn’t get dragged into years of litigation over miss-managed decision making.
Could the revised RFI have anything to do with a recent media release stating no matter which submarine Canada goes with they will be modified to incorporate an upward facing sonar and other changes done here at home (like what Portugal has recently done to theirs) to enable safe operations and overhead ice detection in the Arctic.
No. The changes we're primsrily do to none of the subs being able to meet at least one of the requirements. I don't know exactly what it was, but after some discussions it was decided only the 212CD and KSS-III quakified.
Now granted, that is part of an RFIs job, to engage and get a word from industry on whats possible. In this regafd it did it's job!