Let's talk with Noah (10/21/25): Domestic Submarines again, Hyunmoo, missiles for the F-35
Good Evening everyone!
I hope you're all doing good today. Im sick, very sick but luckily the questions this week we're fairly easy and straight forward. Its a casual week of questions, lots of yes and no. Thats okay! Im always happy to have some casual weeks of questions.
As always you can ask your questions, and vote on others, over on our Slido page. It will be up until Monday! A lot of you sent stuff in DMs also but I prefer the stuff there as it can be voted on and also kept open to everyone. If you enjoy my content also consider supporting TNSR over on our Kofi!
Q1. Do we know if the govt is planning to expand the Leo2 fleet or go to a mixed fleet, given the serviceability issues and the intent to establish a 2nd tank regt?
Funny enough we just answered that in yesterday's newsletter!
Q2. Can TKMS really deliver submarines quickly enough to meet the RCN's timeline for CPSP and do you agree building them in Canada does not may sense?
I spoke at length about building submarines in Canada, however let me quote myself for everyone to see proper:
“First, there is no proposal. There is a hypothetical, a brief mention we could discuss the Idea if we wanted. Second, the recent comments came from Jens Plötner who is the State Secretary for Armaments, Innovation and Cyber. He is not someone from TKMS.
There are a few problems with this Idea. It isnt like it wasnt explored, and the navy determined it wasnt in their best interest. Canada has never built subs, save the few H-Class back in the ancient times.
So the entire capability has to essentially be build from scratch. That includes the Infrastructure, people, if you don’t want to be importing the majority of steel amd equipment than Industrial capacity, skills. That isnt a cheap nor easy thing to build up.
Second, the examples you’re looking for of other yards that TKMS has worked with we’re already well established, large yards active in large scale defence or commercial shipbuilding. Gölcük, Hyundai, Okpo… These aint small, inexperienced yards. Maybe of them also got started on smaller, less advanced subs during the eighties and nineties.
They aint nearly the advanced, complex beasts that the 212CD is. This is a far more complex design to build that a Type 209 or Type 214. No one wants a Hellenic Shipyard experience either.
Canada’s three major yards (Davie, Seaspan, Irving) are already booked heabily into the 2040s. Irving and Seaspan also lack the major space for wide-scale expansion, which is limiting already, let alone if they need to massively expand to handle the construction of submarines and other things like the River-class, MPI, or Program Icebreakers.
Thats the other thing. Any of the major yards tackling this are likely to have to make sacrifices to other, equally important projects under their belt. Are you willing to sacrifice timelines for other projects to build subs?
The alternative is partnering with a smaller yard who might not have the experience that the larger yards have nor the Infrastructure or workforce. All of which will have to be, again, built up from scratch even more so than the big three.
That itself carries heavy risk of a new TKMS or smaller yard taking on such a major, complex construction without the resources or scale of the bigger yards backing them.
Let me put it like this. Would you trust Ontario Shipyards or Groupe Océan to build submarines? Would you trust them with making the Type 212CD? Because those are the types of yards just below the big three with the most potential.
And this isnt to bag on TKMS or their history of supporting foreign construction. It isnt them talking here. The 212CD though is a different beast, and will requires billions of Industrial and Infastructure support just to set up the facilities and supply chain necessary to tackle building them at home.
There will be delays. It is very likely we see delays in domestic production, pushing us out farther and farther into the 2050 timeline. If it took a decade to set everything up, thats negotiations, agreements, setting up the supply chain, the Infrastructure… The best timeline we could likely see for our first domestic sub would be 2042, at the absolute best.
Thats me being very fair and hopeful. That is taking six years to delivery from start of construction like the major yards do. This will very likely see delays, Issues, as is natural when working on a complex platform like this.
That gets further into the Capability vs. Development debate. Are we willing to sacrifice capabilities, push delays, and carry all that risk to build six submarines here? Are we willing to let the navy wait longer, spend exuberant amounts of money, and leave ourselves weaker to try and build a submarine production line?
Similarly I am never sold of promises reliant heavily on ‘export potential’ which is a lovely thing to say, but isnt simple in reality, especially talking twenty years from now. Are we gonna subsidize a potential fourth yard dedicated to building submarines if export orders dont come?
Even assuming the best case, that one of the big three takes this, the risk of busting on this is high unless carefully planned out, and even then the risk is ever present for a niche production line like submarines.
And thats even saying if that potential is worth it compared to what we’re being offered. There is nothing wrong with having the submarines built outside Canada and then supporting them here. That also isnt a throw away capability to have, especially when talking about tech transfer, Land-Based Testing Facilities, Maintenance facilities on both coasts…
Sometimes you need to accept the 80% over the 100%. Sometimes the 80% works out better long-term, less money spent, less risk, higher chance of success for nearly the same benefit. This also isnt saying that either company could throw out better, alternative benefits not tied to defence, or exploiting other capabilities we have here.
This idea has been Investigated. It has been discussed. The conclusion has come back a no every time. It just doesn’t pan out as easy and as beneficial as many want it to be.
The majority of people don’t even really seem to care for the economic. Its a pride thing, to have a Canadian-built submarine, and I get that. However we need capabilities now. You can’t preach urgency and then turn around and take a gambit like this that will inevitably lead to issues down the road.
I would love it. I would, but you can’t chase everything, and this is something where the benefit of building them here just isnt worth all the potential Issues.”
It's good to seperate companies from their governments. TKMS has been clear their current plans do not include domestic production. At most we would be producing things for the wider supply chain. Thats on the table, as with Hanwha.
As for Timelines? TKMS isnt marching Hanwhas, and I would love to see them get those timelines down. However they do match our requirements and the navy has no issue with the timelines presented. They have no concerns production wise.
Q3. What do you think about getting a Lav-based mobile gun similar to the Centauro, especially given the issues the CAF has had with fielding tank fleets
Centauro is a really cool platform. I have lots of respect for the Italians in making the concept work. I still don't know if its for us. I can see the appeal, and obviously we did explore the MGS back in the day.
However if we're going to be getting anything of that capability I would rather see something like the CV90120 first before jumping a a wheeled platform.
I find them more versatile and better optimized for what we want if we decide a true Main Battle Tank is out of the question.
Q4. Which, if any, new munitions will we be purchasing for the F-35/ whatever comes of the fighter review?
The big one is future short, medium, and long-range Air-to-Air missiles. We already have the short and medium relatively filled through the AIM-9x and AIM-120D. That leaves the future Long-Range Air-to-Air Missile (LRAAM) fairly open.
We still dont know exactly what this missile looks like. We also don't have any timelines for it anymore. All we know is that it exists, options are being explored, and eventually we will see something.
It could be something along the lines of Meteor or AIM-174B. It might also end up just being a future, extended AIM-120. We really just don't know.
Future options for Anti-Ship and Air-to-Ground weapons are also being explored, however these are likely to be tied to other platforms. Future F-35 will have the option of LRASM thanks to the P8, as example.
Its very open-ended right now. Nothing is off the table, however official projects aren't on the docket. We're still at that stage of figuring out exactly what we want.
Q5. Fun question: Should the CDC have a 40mm, 57mm or 76mm main gun?
I think the 57 would be the perfect balanace of everything. We already have the supply chain and experience built thanks to the Halifax-class. The Mk4 Bofors 40 is really cool, dont get me wrong. However the 57 feels like an easy, natural choice.
76mm feels a bit to much. I don't envision a scenario where these Corvettes will need it. For the ease of transition, built in experience, and the already established supply I think the 57 should remain the primary choice for CDC in the future.
I dont think the 40 offers enough to mitigate those simple benefits.
Of course the Type 31 will use both, however we are not so gifted lol. I would like to see at least one Lionfish end up on the CDC, both because I love Lionfish and I think it would be a great complement to the 57.
Q6. Will MTCR restrict the export of Korean missiles? If so os the VLS worth it?
No. Everyone has been clear that MTCR is not a factor here. Remember that MTCR carried no legal authority. It is also stupid in today's day and age, as our adversaries freely share technology to hostile regimes, to restrict our own co-development and missile capabilities over a piece of paper.
Throw most arms treaties in here. While I appreciate the world they came from, and I wish we could still hold onto them without question, that isnt the case anymore.
Q7. Is it true that Canada is exploring Boxer for IFM?
No. There is no one offering Boxer for anything.
Q8. Is LRASM still the plan for the P8?
Yes. Its still in the plans. It would be almost neglectful to not acquire it. The P8 is a Multi-Mission aircraft. Not acquiring one of the key capabilities that make that up would be silly.
Q9. Do you think canada has any desire for the new Hyunmoo 5 ballistic missile?
No. I see no reason why we would need something like that? It doesnt fit our doctrine, and I dont know exactly what purpose it would serve over, say, expanding our number of HIMARS.
You could even argue that a platform like MK.70, with access to Tomahawks, would be better off for us. Byunmoo 5 is a very specific platform, designed specifically for the needs of the ROK. It is designed to delete the mountain fortifications and bunkers commonly used by North Korea.
I struggle to see the value of having such an expensive, unique asset for us compared to litterslly any other ground-based strike capability.
Q10. Will you be doing more audio content soon?
Yes. Stay tuned. :)
Let it be known that, for subs, I only includes naval subs like the 212CD and KSS-III. I consider them for different beasts to the others, enough for them to be in their own seperate catagory.
No disrespect to our domestic research and commerical sub builders, nor our many Autonomus Underwater Vehicle manufacturers, of which I will note the historical record and significance of people like International Submarine Engineering.
Theyre still around, still producing great products. I will also give love to the likes of Cellula and Kraken in this space as well.
I think we will go with the 57mm for the reasons you mentioned. However as good as the 57mm is , it is a very close in defence system. Navies are moving to the 5" as it givers good reach, a wider defensive arc, has a good ammunition selection and can do shore bombardment as well.
As for subs, I heartily agree that we must not build them here. But I will disagree on your historical bit, Canada was one of the worlds top builder of research subs and tourist subs. I believe we built 12 large tourist subs for various resorts around the world. I would certainly like to see more investment and manufacturing of AUV, ROV and manned submersibles.