South Korea has officially launched its newest and most advanced submarine to date, the ROKS Jang Yeong-sil (SS-087), marking a significant step in the country’s push for a true Korean-built submarine and a major milestone in its ongoing pursuit of defence self-reliance.
Figures Carney is leaning toward the 212CD he's not interested in what the Navy actually needs nor how fast they need it. He seems to only care about his European deals and the political implications that come with it. Just another Liberal fail on procurement. On the bright side for him atleast he won't have to spend the money for them nearly as quickly, as the Victoria's would likely all be retired long before Canada receives a second submarine and after that who knows, especially if Poland ops for the 212CD. Will likely be several decades with that choice before Canada sees more than one submarine total operational at a time.
Carnet should absolutely have no say in what vessel is selected! It should be based what submarine best fits Canada's need and what country can offer the best benefits to Canada.
Even when the Type 212C/D is probably more technologically advanced, my problems and feeling around timelines, fall on what it’s going to take to train crews and especially Submarine Commanders and officers. It takes a long time to build up competence. The sooner we have the boats in our harbours and exercising in our waters, the sooner we build competent and capable Submarine crews & Commanders.
Aside from the x-rudder and hull shape on the 212CD, there are many areas where the KSS-III are actually more advanced and capable, like the new engines, lithium batteries, new sonar, retractable bow thruster, combat management system, 10 VLS, claims the longest range and underwater endurance of any conventional submarines in the world. Don't forget the South Korean shipyards are also the most advanced and automated shipyards in the world. Korea has some of the most advanced technology industries in the world like Samsung that is designing the lithium batteries. There is absolutely no implications the German sub aside from hull form is more technologically advanced over the Koreans offer, though there are plenty of implications the Korean offer is more Capable and proven, in size, range, VLS, lithium batteries etc.. and size does matter on long deployments for crew moral and if by some strike of bad luck in an emergency having to surface through ice.
I seem to recall reading somewhere (maybe here) that the Koreans are exploring putting a small nuclear reactor in a Batch III or a follow-up class. I wonder if that's something that Canada might be interested in. I still see lots of comments in other forums complaining that Canada should buy nuc boats instead which I disagree with. It would be interesting to see what the Koreans come up with.
Nuclear boats aren’t really an option for the RCN. The reason being is two fold.
1. Manpower and training. It’ll take at minimum a decade to train up the nuclear specialists for a sub. Add to that, you need multiples if each nuclear position as you can’t go to sea without them. We also don’t have the man power for the on shore nuclear boat facilities.
2. On shore Infrastructure. Canada simply doesn’t have the nuclear infrastructure which will take 15+ years to bring online and to have the appropriate people manning them. As it would be asinine to have RCN Nuclear Subs maintained by somebody other than the RCN/Canadian Company.
The ONLY way a Nuclear Submarine is viable. Is if we are putting in the work now, to have the sub after the KSS-III/212C/D is selected, to be a nuclear powered submarine. That’s a whole lot of money that would have to be dumped into that specific program.
Nuclear boats would definitely be more effective and safer for our Arctic use, but with the additional man power incl Nuclear engineers, training, price and operational costs not to mention infrastructure and maintenance we'd be lucky to get 4 and the political fall out from the anti-nuclear crowd/voters would be a non-starter for our Government. Can't see it ever happening tbh.
I’ve never tried to take anything away from the KSS-III batch 2. I understand that it’s definitely better at some things than the Type 212C/D. Although, from what I’m hearing, where the 212C/D will surpass the KSS-III, aside from hull shape and X rudder, is in Combat Management Systems and communications. The Type 212 E model is supposed to be another option as it’s lengthened by another engineered & manufactured block that’s placed behind the sail. Housing AIP/Battery/fuel.
The thing that doesn’t help the KSS-III is in fact the 10 VLS Ballistic Missile silos. As it currently is not within our written doctrine, and to be fair, not wanted by our government. Now if that could be replaced… with nearly anything. Anything that would serve us better.
I don't think the 212CD-er is actually being offered to Canada as I think Noah stated in a previous article it's still just a paper concept that would probably take much longer to build and would require many other changes to compensate for weight and balance/buoyancy that isn't as simple as just adding another block section. Additional time that could possibly eliminate them from the competition based on timeline. I also read somewhere, possibly here that the RCN was in fact interested in the VLS capabilities as additional stand off options though probably not a deciding factor either way. Korea has stated this is optional but have left it in based on their communications with the Canadian side. Perhaps for less alterations or possibly they want it if they can get it? Lol not sure. As for whose communications and Combat management systems are better (seeing how they both are new) I would guess it's information only those involved in the procurement process will ever know. We'll never know either way. If the Korean system is better and we go with the 212CD they'll never tell us that and vise versa. I'm hoping for a KSS-III based on size and production capacity and speed also TKMS has also admitted Korea can build then cheaper and have offered more country to country teamed operational benefits to counter, however I'm sure Korea will offer the same just more Pacific oriented. Hopefully next week in Korea will sway Carney back their direction.
I personally want the KSS-III for speed of production, the lithium battery’s and the longevity of underwater operations. All areas that once built can’t easily be changed. Combat management systems are absolutely upgradable along with comms systems. It’s the things we can’t change that will be what makes the sub for the RCN.
As for the VLS. If it can be changed from a BM to say tomahawk VLS cells, that 100% fits into our mission sets, and doctrine better. Especially in terms of where the RCN is headed.
Understandably, changes mean delays, there’s no question in that.
You just nailed my thinking on it as well. But based on previous as well as current Liberal procurement choices I'm certainly not betting against the 212CD betting chosen based on Carneys Eurpian political ambitions alone.
This piece realy made me think about the incredible strides in battery technology. The shift to lithium-ion with significantly higher energy density is a game-changer for these submarines. What if such advancements become universally scalable for civilian infrastructure, transforming how we store and disribut clean energy? It would be quite something.
As much as I know that the Type 212C/D is technically superior in many aspects for AIP/Diesel electric subs. Timelines feel as of right now as the most important factor. Seeing that there’s a KSS-III batch 2 in the water, in the process of its fitting out, will make for a good sales opportunity.
I wonder, as I don’t honestly know, what kind of building schedules can be attained with either submarine. Especially when there’s other nations in the running for new subs, as I look at Polands Orca Program set to decide soon on a new AIP/diesel electric submarine. Which I believe both Hanwha and TKMS are bidding on.
Figures Carney is leaning toward the 212CD he's not interested in what the Navy actually needs nor how fast they need it. He seems to only care about his European deals and the political implications that come with it. Just another Liberal fail on procurement. On the bright side for him atleast he won't have to spend the money for them nearly as quickly, as the Victoria's would likely all be retired long before Canada receives a second submarine and after that who knows, especially if Poland ops for the 212CD. Will likely be several decades with that choice before Canada sees more than one submarine total operational at a time.
Carnet should absolutely have no say in what vessel is selected! It should be based what submarine best fits Canada's need and what country can offer the best benefits to Canada.
Even when the Type 212C/D is probably more technologically advanced, my problems and feeling around timelines, fall on what it’s going to take to train crews and especially Submarine Commanders and officers. It takes a long time to build up competence. The sooner we have the boats in our harbours and exercising in our waters, the sooner we build competent and capable Submarine crews & Commanders.
Aside from the x-rudder and hull shape on the 212CD, there are many areas where the KSS-III are actually more advanced and capable, like the new engines, lithium batteries, new sonar, retractable bow thruster, combat management system, 10 VLS, claims the longest range and underwater endurance of any conventional submarines in the world. Don't forget the South Korean shipyards are also the most advanced and automated shipyards in the world. Korea has some of the most advanced technology industries in the world like Samsung that is designing the lithium batteries. There is absolutely no implications the German sub aside from hull form is more technologically advanced over the Koreans offer, though there are plenty of implications the Korean offer is more Capable and proven, in size, range, VLS, lithium batteries etc.. and size does matter on long deployments for crew moral and if by some strike of bad luck in an emergency having to surface through ice.
I seem to recall reading somewhere (maybe here) that the Koreans are exploring putting a small nuclear reactor in a Batch III or a follow-up class. I wonder if that's something that Canada might be interested in. I still see lots of comments in other forums complaining that Canada should buy nuc boats instead which I disagree with. It would be interesting to see what the Koreans come up with.
Nuclear boats aren’t really an option for the RCN. The reason being is two fold.
1. Manpower and training. It’ll take at minimum a decade to train up the nuclear specialists for a sub. Add to that, you need multiples if each nuclear position as you can’t go to sea without them. We also don’t have the man power for the on shore nuclear boat facilities.
2. On shore Infrastructure. Canada simply doesn’t have the nuclear infrastructure which will take 15+ years to bring online and to have the appropriate people manning them. As it would be asinine to have RCN Nuclear Subs maintained by somebody other than the RCN/Canadian Company.
The ONLY way a Nuclear Submarine is viable. Is if we are putting in the work now, to have the sub after the KSS-III/212C/D is selected, to be a nuclear powered submarine. That’s a whole lot of money that would have to be dumped into that specific program.
Nuclear boats would definitely be more effective and safer for our Arctic use, but with the additional man power incl Nuclear engineers, training, price and operational costs not to mention infrastructure and maintenance we'd be lucky to get 4 and the political fall out from the anti-nuclear crowd/voters would be a non-starter for our Government. Can't see it ever happening tbh.
I’ve never tried to take anything away from the KSS-III batch 2. I understand that it’s definitely better at some things than the Type 212C/D. Although, from what I’m hearing, where the 212C/D will surpass the KSS-III, aside from hull shape and X rudder, is in Combat Management Systems and communications. The Type 212 E model is supposed to be another option as it’s lengthened by another engineered & manufactured block that’s placed behind the sail. Housing AIP/Battery/fuel.
The thing that doesn’t help the KSS-III is in fact the 10 VLS Ballistic Missile silos. As it currently is not within our written doctrine, and to be fair, not wanted by our government. Now if that could be replaced… with nearly anything. Anything that would serve us better.
I don't think the 212CD-er is actually being offered to Canada as I think Noah stated in a previous article it's still just a paper concept that would probably take much longer to build and would require many other changes to compensate for weight and balance/buoyancy that isn't as simple as just adding another block section. Additional time that could possibly eliminate them from the competition based on timeline. I also read somewhere, possibly here that the RCN was in fact interested in the VLS capabilities as additional stand off options though probably not a deciding factor either way. Korea has stated this is optional but have left it in based on their communications with the Canadian side. Perhaps for less alterations or possibly they want it if they can get it? Lol not sure. As for whose communications and Combat management systems are better (seeing how they both are new) I would guess it's information only those involved in the procurement process will ever know. We'll never know either way. If the Korean system is better and we go with the 212CD they'll never tell us that and vise versa. I'm hoping for a KSS-III based on size and production capacity and speed also TKMS has also admitted Korea can build then cheaper and have offered more country to country teamed operational benefits to counter, however I'm sure Korea will offer the same just more Pacific oriented. Hopefully next week in Korea will sway Carney back their direction.
I personally want the KSS-III for speed of production, the lithium battery’s and the longevity of underwater operations. All areas that once built can’t easily be changed. Combat management systems are absolutely upgradable along with comms systems. It’s the things we can’t change that will be what makes the sub for the RCN.
As for the VLS. If it can be changed from a BM to say tomahawk VLS cells, that 100% fits into our mission sets, and doctrine better. Especially in terms of where the RCN is headed.
Understandably, changes mean delays, there’s no question in that.
You just nailed my thinking on it as well. But based on previous as well as current Liberal procurement choices I'm certainly not betting against the 212CD betting chosen based on Carneys Eurpian political ambitions alone.
This is the first I've heard that Carney might be leaning towards the 212CD. Sure hope the Koreans make a good impression on him....fingers crossed
It’s the same for me too. The first I’ve heard of any leaning
This piece realy made me think about the incredible strides in battery technology. The shift to lithium-ion with significantly higher energy density is a game-changer for these submarines. What if such advancements become universally scalable for civilian infrastructure, transforming how we store and disribut clean energy? It would be quite something.
As much as I know that the Type 212C/D is technically superior in many aspects for AIP/Diesel electric subs. Timelines feel as of right now as the most important factor. Seeing that there’s a KSS-III batch 2 in the water, in the process of its fitting out, will make for a good sales opportunity.
I wonder, as I don’t honestly know, what kind of building schedules can be attained with either submarine. Especially when there’s other nations in the running for new subs, as I look at Polands Orca Program set to decide soon on a new AIP/diesel electric submarine. Which I believe both Hanwha and TKMS are bidding on.