Let's talk with Noah (10/27/25): Is either Sub technically better? Orcas, Fighter Review, P-8 Update
Good Morning everyone!
I hope you're all doing good! We're doing Let's Talk early today so you have something available for your lunchtime reading! I think this week had some great questions, so lets keep this trend going!
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 one of the KSSIII or the Type 212CD have an edge purely on the technical ability of the submarine?
That depends on who you ask! Both the KSS-III and Type-212CD have unqiur features that interest people, obviously. Purely in technical terms? That gets a bit more harder to determine. Both have capable sensor suites.
The Type 212 will use the Hensoldt OMS150 and OMS300 combination, as well as the i360°OS. The KSS-III that we would get will include the Safran (formerly Sagem) Series 30 SOM and Series 30 AOM conbination.
Each system provides high-resolution multispectral imaging, including daytime 4K/HDR cameras, low-light or LLLTV channels, and mid-wave infrared (MWIR) thermal sensing, with optional short-wave infrared (SWIR) for enhanced performance in haze or fog.
Both support eye-safe laser rangefinders, multi-channel simultaneous operation, and rapid panoramic “Quick Look” sweeps, stabilized across multiple axes to ensure clarity in rough sea conditions.
They integrate fully with modern combat management systems via fibre-optic digital links, include provisions for EW, DF, and GNSS antennas, and are software-defined, supporting future upgrades such as image fusion and automated target recognition.
Comparatively, while there might be some non-public info, or highly technical things that sets one combo above the other I don't know them. On paper both systems are similarly capable, with Hensoldt being kind enough to try and provide hard numbers. Safran isn’t as open.
Neither outclassed the other enough for me to make note of it. Similarly, because we don't know thr full sonar suite for the 212CD (we do know a few, but not all) that makes it hard to compare.
On a more technical level, there are a few things each does better than the other, however I wouldn't say they're enough to say that there is an inherent technical advantage. The size advantage of the KSS-III means it offers superior range compared to the 212CD. Thats just because of the additional room for batteries and stores for the AIP.
Comparatively, asking around, the Germans do manage to get very close in endurance despite the smaller hull with TKMS new Advanced Submarine Fuel Cell (ASFC) system, which has recently started production.
This is also despite the power difference between the two 600kw in four×150 kW stacks for KSS-III vs ASFC offering a modular "line system" made of 40 kW stacks grouped to provide up to 320 kW baseline (four line system).
Of course system-level AIP efficiency is a complex beast, with some complex math. While the KSS-III maintains a higher power potential, the Type-212CDs 40kw stacks allow more flexibility and partial-load efficiency, especially at the low-speeds we tend to discuss when it comes to submarines.
That, of course, is by design. It also isn't a criticism of the KSS-III. However these are more of those highly technical that the navy will consider in its selection, much of which is reliant on info that is sensitive and unavailable to the public eye.
I will make this mention though while we are here. While all comparisons that I will do will be with existing systems, both the 212CD and KSS-III plan to include new upgrades and systems before our first is delivered.
For the KSS-III a new AIP is in the works, as well as next-generation batteries. The Type 212CD is also working on more efficent batteries, and both are exploring things like methanol reforming FC.
For us its hard to analyze these things, as they don't really exist for us to compare. However the navy is well aware, amd taking into consideration, these future developments as it's likely our subs will include a lot of these future developments as a baseline.
We don't know all those, so there might be something in there that tips it. Truth is that I don't see either as having an inherently technical advantage. Both are optimized and focused on prioritizing different capabilities. Both have reasonable argument for where our priorities should be esepcially since, at the end of the day, both fulfill our mandatory requirement as they are now.
Q2. Given Canada's preference to go with native produced weapon systems, are there any technologies that Team Korea could offer besides their submarines
Team Korea as in Hanwha/Hyundai? Or Korea in general? Korea is a large country, with a lot of companies in the defence sector. We already have a great idea of what Hanwha could, and would, offer us if we wanted. I wrote about 4000 words on it.
I actually stand that the opportunity for Korean industries is limited just due to the fact that we will prioritize commonality and interoperability with NATO/FE partners over most other things. The inly thing above that is supporting our own domestic industry.
And while Korean comoanies are willing to support local production, they also have to compete with the existing players and, at the end of the day, limited contracts. That means that the existing players will almost always maintain the advantage.
Take something like K2, a Hyundai Rotem product. While offering up domestic production might be on the cards, it has to compete with the already established support system, now being expanded under KNDS, and the fact that its use in Europe, where the tanks would see the primary use is still limited.
I for one am in favour of expanding relationships and finding new partners. I'm also heavily in favour of major combat systems being made here, so long as reasonable. However the current system inherently kneecaps a lot of that.
There is room there. I think the TF-50 could be another interesting possibility. Thats an avenue of cooperation that Canadian and Korean industry could be collaborative on. Same for things like Space-based tehcnologies, nuclear cooperation, and unmanned systems. Those are all fields the Koreans are heavily involbed in that is ripe for technological cooperation.
Q3. Any idea on the expanded fleet of Orca-class vessels mentioned in the announcement of the retirement of the MCDVs?
The plan is to acquire an interim group of vessels very similar to the existing Orca-class as we work towards a future replacement. This interim Orcas would supplement the loss of the Kingston-class when it comes to getting people out to sea. None of this is funded yet.
The Orca replacement is also likely to be sped up. These would be very similar to the existing Orca, maybe a bit bigger. Its still fairly early stages.
Q4. Any rumors on prioritized project lists for all component forces to be considered for DIA? DIA having special agile purchase power? CPSP is top, land, air?
Sadly the only project I know is CPSP. I am working on getting more information. There is still a lot about the DIA that we don't know or is still being worked on. A lot isnt fully set, if you get what I mean. That includes a lot of its authorities and what exactly they are allowed to do.
So talking about the DIA is hard until I get more concrete information.
Q5. Realistically, how much longer can the government hold off on the fighter review?
As long as they want. They could realistically keep this until the decision until funding for the next trache of F-35 comes up. They could keep it going longer if they don'tgive a shit about delays and such. They set the timelines, the rules, and the demands.
As long as there isnt big pressure to make a choice, which there isnt, they have no incentive to rush this.
Q6. Is the fighter review down to only F-35 and/or Gripen or do other fighter like the Rafale, Super Hornet, etc. have a chance?
Bold of you to assume anyone else had more than a glancing chance. Its basically been a Saab/Lockheed game from the start. Others were consulted, but the prime alternative has always been Gripen. It is the platform that has been determined to be the economic alternative long ago.
Q7. Any rumours on STTC ISS contract award timeline?
Sadly no. Thank you for reminding me to ask around about it though lol
Q8. Rumour has it CMMA first deliveries are pushed out to 27 at the earliest- true/false?
True, but its not that serious of a delay time wise. Our P8 will also be really cool if we get all we want, but thats secret. Sometimes delays have a good purpose. :)
Q9. Do you think we have the logistical and personnel capability to maintain a peacekeeping force in Ukraine or would we have to decrease our commitment in Latvia?
No. We're already strained enough to support MNB-L. Canada's role in any Ukranian peacekeeping operation would likely be limited and in support of others allies. Certainly we could not maintain MNB-L and a substantial Ukranian force with dedicated assets like armor, GBAD, and fires capabilities.
Latvia remains and will remain priority. That won't change for Ukraine.
Q10. Do you have anymore podcasts planned?
Yes. Big ones. :)
Thanks Noah, every time you answer these weekly questions I learn more, including about projects not on my radar.
Im curious that the US would allow us to procure Gripens