Excellent article Noah! I am somewhat confused though. If we get the KSS-III are we committed to the Hyunmoo IV-4? I must admit, when I first learned of the VLS on the KSS-III I was thinking of something more like the 688 class with their vertical launch tubes for the Tomahawk. I don't think we need an SLBM but I love the flexibility that a VLS could give us.
Technically we're committed to no munitions. We aren't even committed to the VLS. Hanwha has presented options to remove it if we really don't want it, but the base offering includes it, and there is not an easy path to integrate non-Korean munitions.
You can maybe use those tubes for other things, unmanned systems and such. You can keep them and maybe integrate stuff later? That isn't easy. Integration never is.
Could stick to only the Haeseongs, which could likely be integrated if they aint already. Skip the Hyunmoo IV entirely.
If you look at most of the major powers in the world, They have a combination of Tigers (their Ballistic Missile subs) and Wolves (attack subs). Personally, I think we need both, probably in a 1:2 ratio. It would allow us to more rapidly procure capability (time seems to be of the essence right now) and would also allow the RCN to self-conduct hide and seek exercises between the two types. 4 KSS-III and 8 Type 212CD would be ideal to me.
Thinking about how a KSS III with a VLS full of Haeseong-V could complement a couple of RCD’s on an East Asia patrol has me leaning back towards the KSS III as the preferred sub. What would we name it?
Nice write-up Noah. It answered a few questions I had about the KSS-III. I agree with you on the VLS system. I do not believe we have any need for ballistic missiles, which therefore means the VLS in my mind just becomes 10 extra tubes for launching anti-ship missiles. If you added an extra ring to the sub, extend the torpedo room and increased torpedo storage by 10, it would be the same sub. Maybe TKMS should consider that. LOL
Thanks for the info. That is some serious firepower. Carney said in a speech a while back that in this new world if you aren’t at the table you are on the menu. Twelve subs would definitely change our capabilities and get us that seat that we need to ensure Canadian interests are at least somewhat considered. I can see why there is some urgency to move this project forward.
What’s the magazine capacity of the torpedo tubes? Maybe a good option would be to have the ASMs in the VLS tubes and save the torpedo tubes for torpedos and mines…
Nice information, thx Op! Interesting offensive options for sure. Ballistic missiles represent a unique capability in that very few ships have any ability to stop them. And even those ships have limited launchers magazine depth.
My guess is that if we select the KSS, then other nations are going to take a greater interest in it as well. This will likley drive a modified missile for more general targets and possible a VLS launched cruise missile as well.
Noah, thanks for lifting the curtain on the various S korean ksIII weapons. Fascinating choices there.
Excellent article Noah! I am somewhat confused though. If we get the KSS-III are we committed to the Hyunmoo IV-4? I must admit, when I first learned of the VLS on the KSS-III I was thinking of something more like the 688 class with their vertical launch tubes for the Tomahawk. I don't think we need an SLBM but I love the flexibility that a VLS could give us.
Technically we're committed to no munitions. We aren't even committed to the VLS. Hanwha has presented options to remove it if we really don't want it, but the base offering includes it, and there is not an easy path to integrate non-Korean munitions.
You can maybe use those tubes for other things, unmanned systems and such. You can keep them and maybe integrate stuff later? That isn't easy. Integration never is.
Could stick to only the Haeseongs, which could likely be integrated if they aint already. Skip the Hyunmoo IV entirely.
If you look at most of the major powers in the world, They have a combination of Tigers (their Ballistic Missile subs) and Wolves (attack subs). Personally, I think we need both, probably in a 1:2 ratio. It would allow us to more rapidly procure capability (time seems to be of the essence right now) and would also allow the RCN to self-conduct hide and seek exercises between the two types. 4 KSS-III and 8 Type 212CD would be ideal to me.
Thinking about how a KSS III with a VLS full of Haeseong-V could complement a couple of RCD’s on an East Asia patrol has me leaning back towards the KSS III as the preferred sub. What would we name it?
Nice write-up Noah. It answered a few questions I had about the KSS-III. I agree with you on the VLS system. I do not believe we have any need for ballistic missiles, which therefore means the VLS in my mind just becomes 10 extra tubes for launching anti-ship missiles. If you added an extra ring to the sub, extend the torpedo room and increased torpedo storage by 10, it would be the same sub. Maybe TKMS should consider that. LOL
Thanks for the info. That is some serious firepower. Carney said in a speech a while back that in this new world if you aren’t at the table you are on the menu. Twelve subs would definitely change our capabilities and get us that seat that we need to ensure Canadian interests are at least somewhat considered. I can see why there is some urgency to move this project forward.
What’s the magazine capacity of the torpedo tubes? Maybe a good option would be to have the ASMs in the VLS tubes and save the torpedo tubes for torpedos and mines…
Nice information, thx Op! Interesting offensive options for sure. Ballistic missiles represent a unique capability in that very few ships have any ability to stop them. And even those ships have limited launchers magazine depth.
My guess is that if we select the KSS, then other nations are going to take a greater interest in it as well. This will likley drive a modified missile for more general targets and possible a VLS launched cruise missile as well.