Another great article. You managed to clear up one mistake on my part...for some reason I thought the 212CD only had 4 torpedo tubes not 6. However even with 6 tubes it seems to me to be a lot of different weapons to manage. I guess the weapon load would depend on the particular mission being carried out.
Noah, nice write-up. I assume since all of the 212CD armaments are 533mm tube based and NATO standard, all of the US tube based arms would also be available for use?
Also, based on the statement by GERNOR about wanting to have Canada be a true partner in the future development of upgrades and future models. Any thoughts how that could shape future developments?
Depth is one. If you can put a Haeseong-III or Haeseong-V in the VLS you free up room in thr tubes for things like Torpedoes, Decoys, etc. Keep in mind that stores are limited. Every missile is one less space for something else. That can be an issue in an era of limited tubes and a lot of different munitions.
Theres also flexibility. Those cells are substantially larger than the standard 533mm tube. That means the possibility of larger payloads. That could be missiles. In the future it could also mean Unmanned systems (even though both subs have dedicated room for LUUV) or other packages designed to fit and be launched from the VLS.
Last is futureproofing. Once you say no, thats it. You can't add that caoability back. That adds incentive to look, double-check, triple-check. You might not need it now, but if you think you may need it? You're going to ask some tough questions.
Thanks, to me the 3SM Tyrfing is mandatory. With AI, drones & quantum computing is going to make detection easier making being within torpedo tube range for offence suicidal. Stand off weapons are for that reason mandatory. Subs will be able to keep stealth, but will need more distance to maintain it.
Ding. Modern advancements in AI and machine learning, The advancement of Qyantum systems, the proliferation of UxS, and the expansion of modern MPA/ASW assets by our allies threaten the traditional advantages submarines have had. Stand-Off Anti-Surface capabilities help that, but still one piece of the puzzle.
A bit hard to tell at this time. The opportunity is there, not just for the CD but to other TKMS products. Canada already has an established potential role through people like Kongsberg Geospatial, who are already tied to the project. Don't discount people in the Unmanned space as well.
Another great article. You managed to clear up one mistake on my part...for some reason I thought the 212CD only had 4 torpedo tubes not 6. However even with 6 tubes it seems to me to be a lot of different weapons to manage. I guess the weapon load would depend on the particular mission being carried out.
You won't believe how long it took me to get confirmation on the six tubes. Like many things the four number comes from lack of communication
Noah, nice write-up. I assume since all of the 212CD armaments are 533mm tube based and NATO standard, all of the US tube based arms would also be available for use?
Also, based on the statement by GERNOR about wanting to have Canada be a true partner in the future development of upgrades and future models. Any thoughts how that could shape future developments?
So what is the advantage of the VLS system, magazine depth?
Depth is one. If you can put a Haeseong-III or Haeseong-V in the VLS you free up room in thr tubes for things like Torpedoes, Decoys, etc. Keep in mind that stores are limited. Every missile is one less space for something else. That can be an issue in an era of limited tubes and a lot of different munitions.
Theres also flexibility. Those cells are substantially larger than the standard 533mm tube. That means the possibility of larger payloads. That could be missiles. In the future it could also mean Unmanned systems (even though both subs have dedicated room for LUUV) or other packages designed to fit and be launched from the VLS.
Last is futureproofing. Once you say no, thats it. You can't add that caoability back. That adds incentive to look, double-check, triple-check. You might not need it now, but if you think you may need it? You're going to ask some tough questions.
Thanks, to me the 3SM Tyrfing is mandatory. With AI, drones & quantum computing is going to make detection easier making being within torpedo tube range for offence suicidal. Stand off weapons are for that reason mandatory. Subs will be able to keep stealth, but will need more distance to maintain it.
Ding. Modern advancements in AI and machine learning, The advancement of Qyantum systems, the proliferation of UxS, and the expansion of modern MPA/ASW assets by our allies threaten the traditional advantages submarines have had. Stand-Off Anti-Surface capabilities help that, but still one piece of the puzzle.
A bit hard to tell at this time. The opportunity is there, not just for the CD but to other TKMS products. Canada already has an established potential role through people like Kongsberg Geospatial, who are already tied to the project. Don't discount people in the Unmanned space as well.