Thats what I hear. It is primarily one person in the PMO who has been keeping snd keeping this idea alive snd discussed. Again I don't know who it is, and I doubt wr ever will
I have often in the past referred to PMO staffers ( irregardless of gender) as weasels in short pants.
It's nice to know that they're still living down to my low opinions on their intelligence and ethical standards.
It's long been obvious to me that the majority of the Canadian political establishment are incapable of understanding the necessity of a combat capable military.
Canada has to acknowledge that either Germany or ROK will lose this contract. At a time when we have one functioning submarine (basically) we send a horrific message with awarding a two “ship” fleet. With how much regard will future foreign defence competitors engage with Canada if we waffle on this and other defence procurement matters?
There must be the one winner in this competition and the RCN will have myriad challenges with the one submarine. Yes, and don’t “Canadianize” it or there will be further years long delays.
I’m not sure which submarine is under “deconstruction “ but I was told submarine technical skills training or recurrent training involve the dismantling process to maintain submariner and technician skills.
Let’s hope the government makes the most informed decision and chooses one clear winner in timely fashion.
Agree. Two fleets are dangerous to our national defence. I’m sure the thrust comes from the Industry ministry. It’s really about the automotive industry. That type of policy will harm national defence. Same with having two fighter fleets. The sub bids are based on 12 boats. Change it now, go into protracted discussions and we’re back to delay, delay, delay. Then decide on crap.
Interesting that its just one person pushing this idea. PM Carney or the Defence Minister need to shut this idea down before it starts to gain to much traction.
I would guess that this wrench at the last minute might be a last ditch effort for some of the peace keeping myth holders to try to push back against Carney as he is deeply and fundamentally making Ottawa deal in real Politik. Something the Social justice bunch are probably deeply uncomfortable with.
So announce that we are going full Kreigsmarine and Imperial Orient to bring the Loyd Axworthy/Rock arm of the Liberals to the megaphone.
The World has changed and unserious Ottawa has to catch up
Larger, more room for crew and batteries to extend time on station (and shoehorn in future upgrades), more mass to break through arctic ice if the need arises. Also, it actually operates while the first 212CD is still under construction.
Counterpoint: The stealth of 212cd is better, it's better in the arctic and has lower integration risk. From publicly available estimates, the length of time between snorkel on both boats is very similar.
The Diamond shape of the 212CD hull worries me, too. It sounds great for stealth and is effective on surface ships. However, the engineer in me is worried that the sudden change in angle of the hull will be create stress concentrations at water pressure increases, limiting how deep it can dive compared to the KSS-III.
Optimizing the Diamond-shaped hull is a major feat, certainly. There are a few things I would be curious to know how they've handled. Flow noise, risk of increased drag, maneuverability....
Im sure all of this has been thought of, and likely we'll never hear the story, but I am curious.
And the pressure hull is much smaller than the outer hull specs given. Meaning interior is actually smaller than the current victoria class, which was already stated as being too small for what it navy wanted. You also need to look at crew moral in tight spaces over long ranges effects their operational capability. Their is an article I've read from South Korea, can't remember which one that claims their submariners that have graduated up to the larger KSS-III from the smaller hulls are much more efficient and the moral is greater for that reason and have no desire to return to the smaller submarine operation. Add to this the separate missle VLS capabilities (yes our Government has made missle strike a request) that doesn't occupy the space in our torpedo loading also allows for increased torpedo carriage as well. Weapons carriage means alot in combat operations not too mention it gives more options in any scenario.
How is a more delicate carbon fiber outer hull better in the Arctic? It lacks upward facing radar just like the KSS-III and doesn't show any sensors significantly better than what the KSS-III would have. In fact having an easier to damage hull in an ice filled environment where most of the ground mapping hasn't been completed seems like a riskier and possibly more costly choice, not to mention less mass to surface through ice in an emergency. What attribute(s) or advantages do you know of that make it better in the Arctic than the KSS-III other than just TKMS saying so. The Korean offer claims to have operated there as well.
Fair point. While I'm a KSS-III fan myself, I'm not so sure it's a logical slam dunk, even if it does does edge out the 212CD in my books... But realpolitik factors mean that we need to partner up with our artic buddies, and sharing a platform with Norway is right up that alley. From a political standpoint, we have a lot more to benefit from TKMS. And something that I've never heard anybody else discus, what happens to out future subs if the tensions in the Pacific explode? They are going to be right in the middle of a real mess... Of course the same is true if Russia invaded Europe for TKMS, but I think China is in a better place to kick things off with Taiwan than Russia is with Nato...
Interesting, I think it is the 212CD that is the logical choice, but ultimately I think it comes down to doctrine and use case. I would argue the sub we NEED is the one that can be hidden best in the Arctic islands, St. Laurent Gulf, and around coastal BC. It also allows us to work better with Europe in blockades.
The KSS is the sub I WANT, because it creates better power projection. But that only really makes sense if we think the next conflict is China and that it will be fought mainly on the other side of the Pacific, where we need the much longer range, expect to throw more at land targets, and have less ability to supply on a regular basis.
Fwiw, I tend to agree that one fleet would be the smarter decision. My question is the reverse of the one we normally ask - that is, which choice has the most downside? Would the disappointment of the Germans or the Koreans be the most problematic? Are there other offsets the loser could get (realizing an offset to a $100 billion contract is pretty much impossible)? An interesting summer coming up for defence decisions.
Thats a good discussion topic. Personally, I believe the Germans as it stand have more opportunity to benefot from the future than the Koreans. I believe their chances across things like IFM, HDFM, and maybe MEDCAV are equal or better than the Koreans.
So in terms of followup? The Germans could very much bounce back in my opinion with several twns of billions deals.
Agreed, if we do actually get in a ground war it’s most likely in Europe so it makes sense to partner up with not only a manufacturing powerhouse but the country that is on track to have the largest armed forces on the continent. With FCAS on life support would love to see us, the Swedes and the Germans partner up on a 6th generation fighter project as well.
My view too. Fighters to the Americans so we don't have issues with NORAD. Subs to the Koreans. Practically everything else from trucks to air defence to armoured vehicles will be procured from Europe.
I really like this question. If asking how to make everyone happy is fundamentally the wrong question, this feels like the right question. Not, "can we have our cake and eat it too?" but, "if only one of them gets cake, which one can I entice with something else?"
I like Noah's take on this. If we go South Korean on CPSP, there are plenty of other areas we can collaborate with Germany (I'm looking at you, Airbus, Saab, Bombardier 6th gen!), but if we don't involve SK on the CPSP, I don't see them being our first pick on anything else. Honestly, the missed chance to collab with Norway is more upsetting than the TKMS connection. We will have to wait and see.
Thank you all for the engagement on this. Very thoughtful responses. I agree that SK is unlikely to be as competitive on the program side as Germany would be, although not sure of their ability to deliver in the timelines we might want compared to SK.
Some non-program related thoughts:
- Would choosing SK cost us the DSRB? Is this a realistic chance for us? Do we care?
- Would choosing Germany set us back on our nascent move to more of an Asia focus?
- Program timeline is 2040+. Are we confident the Asian (or European) situation is stable enough for the contract delivery to be secure? (Probably have bigger problems if this becomes an issue).
I hadn't even thought about how CPSP might affect DSRB, that's an interesting thought. My first thought is, "well, that wouldn't be fair if it did," but reality isn't fair. It would be a soft affect, not a hard one, and could be fairly readily mitigated by other purchases from Europe, which are almost definitely coming. But those are going to be immediate, so it's possible that in the short term we hurt the wrong person's feelings, and they cause enough problems down the road to at least potentially derail our chances. But it doesn't feel like it's a for sure result, so I imagine that it will be a fairly minor variable in the political calculus. As for caring... I think we should. DSRB has the potential to focus attention on Canada and it's defense industry at a very basic level, and I expect it will yield innumerable small, but cumulatively significant, benefits for Canada and it's defense industy.
As for setting us back on a shift to focusing on Asia Pacific... I think it would, but not irrevocably. Japan (who often sees itself as a regional competitor to SK) would likely love to fill the place that SK currently is being offered, although they would fill it fairly differently. We are also engaging with the Philippines, so not tying our economy to SK wouldn't end our shift towards the Asia Pacific, but it think it might slow it. Other Asian countries will still be waiting for proof that we are serious about it, and our commitment won't evaporate as soon as the political winds change, which would not be in question if SK won CPSP.
Ans finally, I don't think we can be "confident" of the stability of situations in Europe or the Asian Pacific. North Korea is the most wild card, but they are the smallest, and they have the most reasons not to actually let the situation blow up. Russia is not exactly predictable either, but they are bigger, and there are a lot more eyes on them, so hopefully that counts for something. Unfortunately, I think they actually have more reason to attack Europe than NK does SK, as Russia's economy is in a tough situation, and looks likely to eventually slide much further. They have essentially pivoted their entire country to a war footing, which has allowed them certain leeway to avoid some of the consequences of Putins stupider decisions. If they are ever forced to the negotiating table, and have to end the war there, there is going to be a very real temptation to pick a fight elsewhere to further postpone the consequences. And if Germany or any other EU member gets dragged in, as seems likely in that scenario, it's hard to imagine our subs being their highest priority... But the biggest question is China. If/when they go after Taiwan, there are SO MANY different things that could happen. They have the most power over the world, and what ever they do is going to shake things up in ways that I nobody can predict with any confidence. And SK being on their very doorstep means... Well, I don't know! It could mean that NK takes a poke at SK, it could mean the world economy collapses after the chip fabs on Taiwan are blown up by the retreating Taiwanese, it could mean SO MANY different things. Anybody who thinks they know exactly what will happen after the status quo breaks is either a fool, or selling something. And who knows, maybe the status quo will hold, or the US will collapse before anything else.
I guess what I'm getting at is that Canada shouldn't be "confident" of either option. Just measure the risks, commit, and keep our heads up.
Lots of places. Leos, Lynx, the 10X10 LAV uses the AGM module. You could likely count Airbus enough? Bridge and Gap crossing, Zetros in active procurement...
I'm really torn. Both subs have benefits that are hard to replicate in each other's hulls. I look at operational capability and geographical context: The KSS-III can dive deeper in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic basins and has more versatility in terms of functions (such as the possibility of nuclear deterrent if politicians ever decide on that policy). The 212CD has the detection/concealment advantage (which should lead to better survivability) and can maneuver easier in the shallower waters within the Northwest Passage, North Sea and Baltic.
I still don't think that a split fleet is that bad an idea considering each of their strengths. Simply designate the KSS-III operational area to be the Pacific, Indian and deep Arctic basin closer to Russia with the KSS-dedicated maintenance facility in BC (also making use of Korean facilities if required). The 212CD operational area will be the Atlantic, Baltic, Mediterranean, and Littoral Arctic environments with the 212-dedicated maintenance facility in the Maritimes (also making use of German and Norwegian facilities if required). Sweeten the pot by purchasing 6-8 subs from each contractor with options for up to a further 4-6 sub purchases from each depending on their proven performance.
I still worry about some crippling design flaw that surfaces during construction or operational use of either of these vessels, as well as any unforeseen political changes that might make working with either country challenging [looks south of the border]. It might be politically prudent not to put all our eggs in one basket (the same argument as the F-35/Gripen debate).
Additionally, other factors to consider include ease of manufacture, parts logistics, and delivery times. I don't envy the decision-makers on this procurement, but it all depends on what vision the RCN has for these subs and what are their most important characteristics. Are they looking for just pure covert surveillance, tracking, and opportunity ambush tactics? Then the 212CD is your sub. Are they looking for a versatile submersible vessel with significant long-range firepower? Then the choice is the KSS-III.
Regardless, both the hulls are a serious upgrade to the current Victoria-class and can't come soon enough.
A split fleet sounds appealing but would be a logistical and financial disaster. You're not buying two submarines—you're buying two entirely separate navies. Different supply chains, different training, different maintenance facilities, different weapons. That duplicates costs at every level and destroys personnel flexibility since crews can't cross between boats.
Most of these people don't understand the logistical and training burden for the CAF. The same reason they think a split fleet is easy for the RCAF is the same reason they think a split sub fleet is feasible.
Also, let's see how much of this spending holds up when Trump isn't in office anymore.
Both good points. And I agree, people are applying the same logic to both cases. That being said, many air forces and navies have done this before. The real question is weather or not the taxpayers are ready for the extra cost required to make 2 fleets (air or sea) effective. Which brings us to your second point. While pessimistic, it's also entirely fair to be suspicious of the current fervour for military funding, and to want to prepare for it to disappear after Trump, and to want to hedge our bets, and make sure what ever we end up with can be sustained after the public's attention has moved on. But we have to be careful not to create self fulfilling prophecies, or keep us from taking advantage of the current funding blitz. It may be naively optimistic, but I think that we can sustain a better funded military into the future. Sure, there will be a bit of a slump after Trump comes out of office, but if we have fundamentally changed how the public sees the military, the new normal will still include higher funding rates and bigger recruitment numbers into the future...
All similar arguments for the F-35/Gripen dilemma. First, the CAF are undermanned for the existing fleet; then we add two new types and must still maintain the old fleet until the new units come on board. No service in the CAF is manned up to that challenge…not training, not operations, not maintenance. I love that we have tough decisions like this to make…we never had this in my day. But, a definitive selection must be made, and it cannot break the folks in Hyde service it was meant to help. Please Canada, pick a lane!
I think the f35 v Gripen debate is actually very different. They fill completely different roles, rather than filling the same role with different strengths. The f35 is an offensive weapon, the Gripen is a defensive weapon. If we wanted to use all our planes for one thing, we should keep our fleet unified, bit if we use one fleet for NATO missions, and one fleet for sovereign defense (and norad, ignore the noise hoekstra makes, it's all hot air and nonsense)...
Lol, no offense taken. I've had some interesting discussions with my pilot friends. I don't think I've convinced any of them, but they are will to consider my ideas. I don't deny that the f35 is far more capable, but they also have draw backs. They have much lower availability, they are more expensive to maintain, and they tie us to Americans more tightly than I think the country as a whole is comfortable with at this point (I understand that many in the CAF think the last is just a passing political fad, but the feeling is real, and can't be hand waved away, no matter how inconvenient it may be). And While the Gripen is less capable, is it enough less capable to make it a bad choice? It would be a dumb idea to replace the entire f35 fleet with Gripens, and operating a split fleet does have very real draw backs, but what we need to ask is if we can make it work, and if the advantages out weigh the drawbacks. And really, there are 2 issues to debate, and they should be discussed separately before we combine them into one discussion. 1. F35 vs Gripen (f35 wins, but not by as much as certain groups would like it known. The leaked comparison results were f35 block 4 vs Gripen C/D, and block 4 is still a work in progress, and C/D is a generation older than what's currently being offered), and 2. Spit fleet vs unified fleet. Traditionally, unified fleet has won, but I think the reason that is the case is we are used to operating the CAF and RCAF on a shoe string, and a constant manpower shortage. If we can imagine a Canada with a fully funded and expanded roster, some of the necessity to operate as few few different airframes is removed. Oh, there is still clear advantages to efficiency in operating and training for a single airframe, but it's no longer priority one. Then things like resiliency and different fighters for different purposes can be considered. The American operate the f15 side by side with the f35, and the f16 block 70 is still being built for the export market. What I am saying is that there is a case for splitting the fleet, and it's not completely nonsense. I dread a day when we are relying on the US for software for the f35, and they devolve into civil war, and we suddenly have a while bunch of hamstrung jets sitting in hangers. Is it likely? Well... Not really. But you can't tell me it's not a possibility ant more. So it's risk management. And that is not a risk with the Gripen. And paired with robust ground radar, a Gripen could defend against a f35, even if it would have a snowflakes chance in hell of pentrating hostile airspace. Food for thought.
Well we are getting atleast 30 F-35s no matter what. So the choice isn't between the F-35 and Gripen-e. In this case it's a choice of a single type fighter fleet or a dual one. Which is silly in my opinion.
TKMS has stated the same. Whoever is pushing the split fleet is playing with fire when it comes to these companies, how long before they just stop offering more and more and just say take it or leave it based on numbers or pull out entirely like what happened in the fighter jet competition. People forget the Gripen-e ended up being the runner up only because The Typhoon and Rafale both exited the competition of their own accord.
I seriously don't know who's pushing for a split fleet. I know it isn't the navy, or any defence experts. I think the whole splitting the fleet thing is coming up because, Canada is trying to push either Germany or South Korea to open an auto plant here.
I'll say it again, TKMS needs to consider offering something like delivering the first 6 as standard CDs for the Atlantic, then using the time before the delivery of the final 6 to engineer and transition to a stretched expeditionary variant for the Pacific.
I like the idea, but I don't think the current agreement will include any of that language. Not enough time, and the requirement would have to come from us. TKMS is not going to spend the money on design work when they can already sell us designs that are finalized.
doesn't work like that. would take too long, too much investment, too much changes. subs are some of the most difficult things to go back and re-design. Wouldn't make sense for TKMS to do it.
TKMS had already done preliminary design work for the stretched Expeditionary variant for the Netherlands competition, using a small hull insert to increase fuel capacity and improve habitability. They were projecting delivery of the first boat roughly 7 to 8 years after contract award, if chosen.
Given that we’re potentially looking at 12 to 15 years before boats 7 through 12 would even be delivered for Canada, that seems like more than enough time to complete the detailed engineering and design work. The real issue would obviously be the funding required.
I see your point on the timeline, but I think you're underestimating the disruption that a hull insert causes, even with preliminary design work done.
TKMS having a preliminary design is a good starting point, sure. But 'preliminary design' is a long way from a production-ready engineering package. You're talking about re-running structural analysis, stress tests, hydrodynamic modeling, and probably most critically, re-certifying the damn thing with the classification society. That alone can take years.
More importantly, you don't just build the first six, then magically switch tooling and assembly lines for the next six. Shipyards build in flights for a reason. You'd either have to:
Pause production mid-stream to retool for the new design (killing your learning curve and driving up costs), or
Run parallel production lines for two different variants (which is a logistical and cost nightmare for a program this small).
By the time boat 7 is being built, the yard might still be fitting out boat 5. You'd have two different sets of parts, two different training requirements for the crew, and two different maintenance profiles for the RCN.
So yes, the calendar might say 12-15 years is enough time to draw it. But the reality of shipbuilding says introducing a second variant halfway through is a recipe for cost overruns and delays. Funding is one hurdle, but industrial complexity is another beast entirely.
Another point is that TKMS order book is already full. TKMS isn't going to pause those production lines, hire a bunch of extra engineers, and go back to the drawing board to design a stretched expeditionary variant just because Canada might want six of them down the road. We'd be begging for a custom version while they're busy churning out boats for paying customers with firm contracts.
I bet Joly is one of them pushing for this, it’s sounds right up her alley. Please pick one. I prefer the 212cd but I’d much prefer 12 KSS III over a split order. We must get this right, the future of our country depends on it.
Noah, since you have done a pile of research on the options, any chance you could chime in and help solidify some of the comments and discussion. Based on my research and reading yours, here are my takes on the information from the comments.
SIZE
It is my understanding both are essentially the same size. KSS is 9.6m and 212 is 10.0m. So no difference in beam (Victoria class is 7.2m). KSS is 15m longer which is due to 15m worth of VLS launchers. Minus launchers they are same length.
RANGE
10,000nmi for KSS and unknown for 212. 212A had a range of 8,000nmi with lead-acid batteries so have to assume the 212CD with LFP batteries will be between 8,000nmi and 10,000nmi like KSS with lithium batteries.
DEPTH
250m-400m for KSS (i have seen different numbers), 250m-300m for 212 (again have seen different numbers). slight advantage for KSS but after about 250m does it matter LOL.
As for shallow depths, cross rudders for KSS, X rudders for 212. Some argue X better for shallows but not sure how much or how much stock I put in that. If you are that close to the bottom for it to make a difference you probably have bigger issues.
CREW
40-50 for KSS, 30-40 for 212. So crew comfort and amenities is same.
STEALTH
Magnetic steel with anechoic coating for KSS and Non-magnetic Pressure hull with diamond outer hull for 212. 212 should be better at avoiding MAG detection.
ARMAMENT
Same except KSS has VLS. Both can fire land based missiles (tomahawks), KSS just has 2 options for launching (tube and VLS). With 10 VLS cells KSS can most likely carry 10 more weapons. Torpedoes are both heavy variants and hit equally as hard.
ELECTRONICS
Sensor and periscope packages are both top notch. Both AIP. CMS both top notch. SAME, same, same but different manufacturers. Don't think anything to see here.
I would welcome anyone who has better info or has clarifications.
The KSS-III is a single hull which means it's interior is the size they claim. The 212CD is a dual hull with the outer hull being significantly larger for the hull shaping stealth, meaning the interior pressure hull (livable/useful space) is much smaller than the measurements given.
I guess it depends on your definition of signicant. From everything I have seen it is a meter at most. Which would put KSS at 9.6 and 212 at 9ish. 600mm or 2ft is not significant, but I have also not seen proper x-sections of both. So much of usable interior room will depend on dimensions of interior ribbing on the hull, mechanical, electrical, etc. I am going by only real dimension we are given. Beam. I have only seen ~10m for the outer shape and 10m beam on wiki. If you have better sources, I would love to see them as am really ointerested in the topic of CPSP.
Think of it this way. Even with a dual hull, (outer and inner pressure) the 212CD is 1100 tons lighter surfaced. Even though the KSS-III has one hull. 89m for the true size single hull vs 73 m for just the outer hull of 212cd that's not the inner hull. Which means the inside hull length difference is probably even greater than the 16 m claimed on the exterior.
The difference in length really has nothing to do with the non-pressure hull. That difference is entirely due to the 10 VLS cell section that the KSS has that the 212 does not. I would hazard a guess that this is what also accounts for the weight difference.
An 8 cell strike length mk-41 is a little over 26000 pounds or 13 tons assuming the 10 Korean cells are even double that weight being slightly larger at around 26 to 30 tons does not account for the 1100 ton difference.. not even close.
The 10m figure is the beam at the widest point of the hull which is actually toward the bottom in the 212CD not the center, the inner hull is circular meaning smaller than the center of the hull. So in assuming based on shape and pictures shown is probably closer to a 7 m beam and that doesn't even mention the true length of pressure hull. My guess is the pressure hull is smaller than that of the Victoria's hull that even our Navy said was too small for our needs. But yes it would be something to research.
I tried to share an infographic but it won't let me. If you search up the 212CD images you'll find an infographic comparing it to the 212A where it shows a frontal profile that shows the widest point at 10m far below center mass of hull. Pretty sure this was a TKMS release and it is referred to as a diamond shaped hull in reverse which also would mean the widest point would not be center if you've ever seen pics or drawings of diamonds you'd know what I'm referring to.
LOL that was the one I was looking at also. I decided to try a different approach and copied that image into my Bluebeam software, calibrated the scale to match the dimensions. The largest pressure hull you can fit in that shape is 8.4 meters which is about 1.2 meters smaller than KSS. Also if you look at the side view of that picture, the prop centerline is just above the side crease from the diamond shape. This matches up with the centerline of my 8.4 meter circle in Bluebeam. So I think we could probably fairly accurately say that that is probably close to the actual pressure measurement. We may have figured something out here. lol
KSS-III Batch II has been listed to have a standard crew requirement of 33 personnel, while the Type 212CD is listed as 28. Confusion about KSS-III Batch II comes down to the fact that the Korean submarine has a substantial amount of additional space set aside aboard to embark additional personnel for training or other roles as required by the CPSP's RFI. It does not seem like the German design has this sort of extra space built into the design, and would need to set up ad-hoc berthing space somewhere inside the submarine like the torpedo room to fit any extra staff.
Leaf, where did you read about the "substantial" amount of additional space. KSS-III is only longer because of the VLS cells. It has no more usable interior space than the 212CD. It would not even have made it this far if it didn't have the additional berths as required by RFP (see Noah's article)
Thats what I hear. It is primarily one person in the PMO who has been keeping snd keeping this idea alive snd discussed. Again I don't know who it is, and I doubt wr ever will
I have often in the past referred to PMO staffers ( irregardless of gender) as weasels in short pants.
It's nice to know that they're still living down to my low opinions on their intelligence and ethical standards.
It's long been obvious to me that the majority of the Canadian political establishment are incapable of understanding the necessity of a combat capable military.
Canada has to acknowledge that either Germany or ROK will lose this contract. At a time when we have one functioning submarine (basically) we send a horrific message with awarding a two “ship” fleet. With how much regard will future foreign defence competitors engage with Canada if we waffle on this and other defence procurement matters?
There must be the one winner in this competition and the RCN will have myriad challenges with the one submarine. Yes, and don’t “Canadianize” it or there will be further years long delays.
I’m not sure which submarine is under “deconstruction “ but I was told submarine technical skills training or recurrent training involve the dismantling process to maintain submariner and technician skills.
Let’s hope the government makes the most informed decision and chooses one clear winner in timely fashion.
Agree. Two fleets are dangerous to our national defence. I’m sure the thrust comes from the Industry ministry. It’s really about the automotive industry. That type of policy will harm national defence. Same with having two fighter fleets. The sub bids are based on 12 boats. Change it now, go into protracted discussions and we’re back to delay, delay, delay. Then decide on crap.
A valid concern. The thing I hear is it is beyond the Cabinet level and to the PMO level, so some9ne very close to the Prime Minister.
Granted, that doesnt mean peoppe aint trying to shift the process elsewhere, but on the split? It seems to be PMo
At cabinet? Joly sits there.
Interesting that its just one person pushing this idea. PM Carney or the Defence Minister need to shut this idea down before it starts to gain to much traction.
I would guess that this wrench at the last minute might be a last ditch effort for some of the peace keeping myth holders to try to push back against Carney as he is deeply and fundamentally making Ottawa deal in real Politik. Something the Social justice bunch are probably deeply uncomfortable with.
So announce that we are going full Kreigsmarine and Imperial Orient to bring the Loyd Axworthy/Rock arm of the Liberals to the megaphone.
The World has changed and unserious Ottawa has to catch up
Politics aside the logical choice is 12 KSS-III. But that doesn't coincide with Carneys EU arming plan.
Why is the KSS the logical choice?
Larger, more room for crew and batteries to extend time on station (and shoehorn in future upgrades), more mass to break through arctic ice if the need arises. Also, it actually operates while the first 212CD is still under construction.
Counterpoint: The stealth of 212cd is better, it's better in the arctic and has lower integration risk. From publicly available estimates, the length of time between snorkel on both boats is very similar.
The Diamond shape of the 212CD hull worries me, too. It sounds great for stealth and is effective on surface ships. However, the engineer in me is worried that the sudden change in angle of the hull will be create stress concentrations at water pressure increases, limiting how deep it can dive compared to the KSS-III.
Optimizing the Diamond-shaped hull is a major feat, certainly. There are a few things I would be curious to know how they've handled. Flow noise, risk of increased drag, maneuverability....
Im sure all of this has been thought of, and likely we'll never hear the story, but I am curious.
I don’t believe the diamond shape hull is the pressure hull
And the pressure hull is much smaller than the outer hull specs given. Meaning interior is actually smaller than the current victoria class, which was already stated as being too small for what it navy wanted. You also need to look at crew moral in tight spaces over long ranges effects their operational capability. Their is an article I've read from South Korea, can't remember which one that claims their submariners that have graduated up to the larger KSS-III from the smaller hulls are much more efficient and the moral is greater for that reason and have no desire to return to the smaller submarine operation. Add to this the separate missle VLS capabilities (yes our Government has made missle strike a request) that doesn't occupy the space in our torpedo loading also allows for increased torpedo carriage as well. Weapons carriage means alot in combat operations not too mention it gives more options in any scenario.
How is a more delicate carbon fiber outer hull better in the Arctic? It lacks upward facing radar just like the KSS-III and doesn't show any sensors significantly better than what the KSS-III would have. In fact having an easier to damage hull in an ice filled environment where most of the ground mapping hasn't been completed seems like a riskier and possibly more costly choice, not to mention less mass to surface through ice in an emergency. What attribute(s) or advantages do you know of that make it better in the Arctic than the KSS-III other than just TKMS saying so. The Korean offer claims to have operated there as well.
Not to mention the added flexibility of the VLS
Fair point. While I'm a KSS-III fan myself, I'm not so sure it's a logical slam dunk, even if it does does edge out the 212CD in my books... But realpolitik factors mean that we need to partner up with our artic buddies, and sharing a platform with Norway is right up that alley. From a political standpoint, we have a lot more to benefit from TKMS. And something that I've never heard anybody else discus, what happens to out future subs if the tensions in the Pacific explode? They are going to be right in the middle of a real mess... Of course the same is true if Russia invaded Europe for TKMS, but I think China is in a better place to kick things off with Taiwan than Russia is with Nato...
The Taiwan Strait averages 60m deep, 150m max. I would want the stealthiest sub to monitor the Landing Ship traffic.
Interesting, I think it is the 212CD that is the logical choice, but ultimately I think it comes down to doctrine and use case. I would argue the sub we NEED is the one that can be hidden best in the Arctic islands, St. Laurent Gulf, and around coastal BC. It also allows us to work better with Europe in blockades.
The KSS is the sub I WANT, because it creates better power projection. But that only really makes sense if we think the next conflict is China and that it will be fought mainly on the other side of the Pacific, where we need the much longer range, expect to throw more at land targets, and have less ability to supply on a regular basis.
Great couple of articles Noah. Well done. I'm curious, who is the one person pushing a split fleet?
Dont know, but it’s very specifically one person who keeps the idea going. That's all I know
Any idea if this person is RCN or Government?
He has said "some one in the PMO" meaning prime minister's office, so it's on the government side, I believe.
Fwiw, I tend to agree that one fleet would be the smarter decision. My question is the reverse of the one we normally ask - that is, which choice has the most downside? Would the disappointment of the Germans or the Koreans be the most problematic? Are there other offsets the loser could get (realizing an offset to a $100 billion contract is pretty much impossible)? An interesting summer coming up for defence decisions.
Thats a good discussion topic. Personally, I believe the Germans as it stand have more opportunity to benefot from the future than the Koreans. I believe their chances across things like IFM, HDFM, and maybe MEDCAV are equal or better than the Koreans.
So in terms of followup? The Germans could very much bounce back in my opinion with several twns of billions deals.
Agreed, if we do actually get in a ground war it’s most likely in Europe so it makes sense to partner up with not only a manufacturing powerhouse but the country that is on track to have the largest armed forces on the continent. With FCAS on life support would love to see us, the Swedes and the Germans partner up on a 6th generation fighter project as well.
My view too. Fighters to the Americans so we don't have issues with NORAD. Subs to the Koreans. Practically everything else from trucks to air defence to armoured vehicles will be procured from Europe.
I really like this question. If asking how to make everyone happy is fundamentally the wrong question, this feels like the right question. Not, "can we have our cake and eat it too?" but, "if only one of them gets cake, which one can I entice with something else?"
I like Noah's take on this. If we go South Korean on CPSP, there are plenty of other areas we can collaborate with Germany (I'm looking at you, Airbus, Saab, Bombardier 6th gen!), but if we don't involve SK on the CPSP, I don't see them being our first pick on anything else. Honestly, the missed chance to collab with Norway is more upsetting than the TKMS connection. We will have to wait and see.
Thank you all for the engagement on this. Very thoughtful responses. I agree that SK is unlikely to be as competitive on the program side as Germany would be, although not sure of their ability to deliver in the timelines we might want compared to SK.
Some non-program related thoughts:
- Would choosing SK cost us the DSRB? Is this a realistic chance for us? Do we care?
- Would choosing Germany set us back on our nascent move to more of an Asia focus?
- Program timeline is 2040+. Are we confident the Asian (or European) situation is stable enough for the contract delivery to be secure? (Probably have bigger problems if this becomes an issue).
Those are some really good follow up thoughts.
I hadn't even thought about how CPSP might affect DSRB, that's an interesting thought. My first thought is, "well, that wouldn't be fair if it did," but reality isn't fair. It would be a soft affect, not a hard one, and could be fairly readily mitigated by other purchases from Europe, which are almost definitely coming. But those are going to be immediate, so it's possible that in the short term we hurt the wrong person's feelings, and they cause enough problems down the road to at least potentially derail our chances. But it doesn't feel like it's a for sure result, so I imagine that it will be a fairly minor variable in the political calculus. As for caring... I think we should. DSRB has the potential to focus attention on Canada and it's defense industry at a very basic level, and I expect it will yield innumerable small, but cumulatively significant, benefits for Canada and it's defense industy.
As for setting us back on a shift to focusing on Asia Pacific... I think it would, but not irrevocably. Japan (who often sees itself as a regional competitor to SK) would likely love to fill the place that SK currently is being offered, although they would fill it fairly differently. We are also engaging with the Philippines, so not tying our economy to SK wouldn't end our shift towards the Asia Pacific, but it think it might slow it. Other Asian countries will still be waiting for proof that we are serious about it, and our commitment won't evaporate as soon as the political winds change, which would not be in question if SK won CPSP.
Ans finally, I don't think we can be "confident" of the stability of situations in Europe or the Asian Pacific. North Korea is the most wild card, but they are the smallest, and they have the most reasons not to actually let the situation blow up. Russia is not exactly predictable either, but they are bigger, and there are a lot more eyes on them, so hopefully that counts for something. Unfortunately, I think they actually have more reason to attack Europe than NK does SK, as Russia's economy is in a tough situation, and looks likely to eventually slide much further. They have essentially pivoted their entire country to a war footing, which has allowed them certain leeway to avoid some of the consequences of Putins stupider decisions. If they are ever forced to the negotiating table, and have to end the war there, there is going to be a very real temptation to pick a fight elsewhere to further postpone the consequences. And if Germany or any other EU member gets dragged in, as seems likely in that scenario, it's hard to imagine our subs being their highest priority... But the biggest question is China. If/when they go after Taiwan, there are SO MANY different things that could happen. They have the most power over the world, and what ever they do is going to shake things up in ways that I nobody can predict with any confidence. And SK being on their very doorstep means... Well, I don't know! It could mean that NK takes a poke at SK, it could mean the world economy collapses after the chip fabs on Taiwan are blown up by the retreating Taiwanese, it could mean SO MANY different things. Anybody who thinks they know exactly what will happen after the status quo breaks is either a fool, or selling something. And who knows, maybe the status quo will hold, or the US will collapse before anything else.
I guess what I'm getting at is that Canada shouldn't be "confident" of either option. Just measure the risks, commit, and keep our heads up.
Well if we go Korean the Germans do build Leopards and the new Lynx MICV’s.
Or in the opposite direction SK builds Tanks,red backs and K 9’sand 10’s so.,.
Not to mention our JSS design came from TKMS and if we increase that order for two more they will reap those benefits.
Is there a way we can heavily invest in German technology and equipment if we get the KSS-III?
In the hopes of getting a few of the offsets they offered in CP, maybe we upgrade/buy Leo2A8s, Lynx's, PZH2000s...what else?
Lots of places. Leos, Lynx, the 10X10 LAV uses the AGM module. You could likely count Airbus enough? Bridge and Gap crossing, Zetros in active procurement...
Germans are not without future options
I'm really torn. Both subs have benefits that are hard to replicate in each other's hulls. I look at operational capability and geographical context: The KSS-III can dive deeper in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic basins and has more versatility in terms of functions (such as the possibility of nuclear deterrent if politicians ever decide on that policy). The 212CD has the detection/concealment advantage (which should lead to better survivability) and can maneuver easier in the shallower waters within the Northwest Passage, North Sea and Baltic.
I still don't think that a split fleet is that bad an idea considering each of their strengths. Simply designate the KSS-III operational area to be the Pacific, Indian and deep Arctic basin closer to Russia with the KSS-dedicated maintenance facility in BC (also making use of Korean facilities if required). The 212CD operational area will be the Atlantic, Baltic, Mediterranean, and Littoral Arctic environments with the 212-dedicated maintenance facility in the Maritimes (also making use of German and Norwegian facilities if required). Sweeten the pot by purchasing 6-8 subs from each contractor with options for up to a further 4-6 sub purchases from each depending on their proven performance.
I still worry about some crippling design flaw that surfaces during construction or operational use of either of these vessels, as well as any unforeseen political changes that might make working with either country challenging [looks south of the border]. It might be politically prudent not to put all our eggs in one basket (the same argument as the F-35/Gripen debate).
Additionally, other factors to consider include ease of manufacture, parts logistics, and delivery times. I don't envy the decision-makers on this procurement, but it all depends on what vision the RCN has for these subs and what are their most important characteristics. Are they looking for just pure covert surveillance, tracking, and opportunity ambush tactics? Then the 212CD is your sub. Are they looking for a versatile submersible vessel with significant long-range firepower? Then the choice is the KSS-III.
Regardless, both the hulls are a serious upgrade to the current Victoria-class and can't come soon enough.
A split fleet sounds appealing but would be a logistical and financial disaster. You're not buying two submarines—you're buying two entirely separate navies. Different supply chains, different training, different maintenance facilities, different weapons. That duplicates costs at every level and destroys personnel flexibility since crews can't cross between boats.
Most of these people don't understand the logistical and training burden for the CAF. The same reason they think a split fleet is easy for the RCAF is the same reason they think a split sub fleet is feasible.
Also, let's see how much of this spending holds up when Trump isn't in office anymore.
Both good points. And I agree, people are applying the same logic to both cases. That being said, many air forces and navies have done this before. The real question is weather or not the taxpayers are ready for the extra cost required to make 2 fleets (air or sea) effective. Which brings us to your second point. While pessimistic, it's also entirely fair to be suspicious of the current fervour for military funding, and to want to prepare for it to disappear after Trump, and to want to hedge our bets, and make sure what ever we end up with can be sustained after the public's attention has moved on. But we have to be careful not to create self fulfilling prophecies, or keep us from taking advantage of the current funding blitz. It may be naively optimistic, but I think that we can sustain a better funded military into the future. Sure, there will be a bit of a slump after Trump comes out of office, but if we have fundamentally changed how the public sees the military, the new normal will still include higher funding rates and bigger recruitment numbers into the future...
All similar arguments for the F-35/Gripen dilemma. First, the CAF are undermanned for the existing fleet; then we add two new types and must still maintain the old fleet until the new units come on board. No service in the CAF is manned up to that challenge…not training, not operations, not maintenance. I love that we have tough decisions like this to make…we never had this in my day. But, a definitive selection must be made, and it cannot break the folks in Hyde service it was meant to help. Please Canada, pick a lane!
I think the f35 v Gripen debate is actually very different. They fill completely different roles, rather than filling the same role with different strengths. The f35 is an offensive weapon, the Gripen is a defensive weapon. If we wanted to use all our planes for one thing, we should keep our fleet unified, bit if we use one fleet for NATO missions, and one fleet for sovereign defense (and norad, ignore the noise hoekstra makes, it's all hot air and nonsense)...
This is just nonsense.
Signed. A serving RCAF member.
Lol, no offense taken. I've had some interesting discussions with my pilot friends. I don't think I've convinced any of them, but they are will to consider my ideas. I don't deny that the f35 is far more capable, but they also have draw backs. They have much lower availability, they are more expensive to maintain, and they tie us to Americans more tightly than I think the country as a whole is comfortable with at this point (I understand that many in the CAF think the last is just a passing political fad, but the feeling is real, and can't be hand waved away, no matter how inconvenient it may be). And While the Gripen is less capable, is it enough less capable to make it a bad choice? It would be a dumb idea to replace the entire f35 fleet with Gripens, and operating a split fleet does have very real draw backs, but what we need to ask is if we can make it work, and if the advantages out weigh the drawbacks. And really, there are 2 issues to debate, and they should be discussed separately before we combine them into one discussion. 1. F35 vs Gripen (f35 wins, but not by as much as certain groups would like it known. The leaked comparison results were f35 block 4 vs Gripen C/D, and block 4 is still a work in progress, and C/D is a generation older than what's currently being offered), and 2. Spit fleet vs unified fleet. Traditionally, unified fleet has won, but I think the reason that is the case is we are used to operating the CAF and RCAF on a shoe string, and a constant manpower shortage. If we can imagine a Canada with a fully funded and expanded roster, some of the necessity to operate as few few different airframes is removed. Oh, there is still clear advantages to efficiency in operating and training for a single airframe, but it's no longer priority one. Then things like resiliency and different fighters for different purposes can be considered. The American operate the f15 side by side with the f35, and the f16 block 70 is still being built for the export market. What I am saying is that there is a case for splitting the fleet, and it's not completely nonsense. I dread a day when we are relying on the US for software for the f35, and they devolve into civil war, and we suddenly have a while bunch of hamstrung jets sitting in hangers. Is it likely? Well... Not really. But you can't tell me it's not a possibility ant more. So it's risk management. And that is not a risk with the Gripen. And paired with robust ground radar, a Gripen could defend against a f35, even if it would have a snowflakes chance in hell of pentrating hostile airspace. Food for thought.
Well we are getting atleast 30 F-35s no matter what. So the choice isn't between the F-35 and Gripen-e. In this case it's a choice of a single type fighter fleet or a dual one. Which is silly in my opinion.
Just read The Korea times. Korea will cut investments if contract is split....
TKMS has stated the same. Whoever is pushing the split fleet is playing with fire when it comes to these companies, how long before they just stop offering more and more and just say take it or leave it based on numbers or pull out entirely like what happened in the fighter jet competition. People forget the Gripen-e ended up being the runner up only because The Typhoon and Rafale both exited the competition of their own accord.
I seriously don't know who's pushing for a split fleet. I know it isn't the navy, or any defence experts. I think the whole splitting the fleet thing is coming up because, Canada is trying to push either Germany or South Korea to open an auto plant here.
I'll say it again, TKMS needs to consider offering something like delivering the first 6 as standard CDs for the Atlantic, then using the time before the delivery of the final 6 to engineer and transition to a stretched expeditionary variant for the Pacific.
I like the idea, but I don't think the current agreement will include any of that language. Not enough time, and the requirement would have to come from us. TKMS is not going to spend the money on design work when they can already sell us designs that are finalized.
doesn't work like that. would take too long, too much investment, too much changes. subs are some of the most difficult things to go back and re-design. Wouldn't make sense for TKMS to do it.
TKMS had already done preliminary design work for the stretched Expeditionary variant for the Netherlands competition, using a small hull insert to increase fuel capacity and improve habitability. They were projecting delivery of the first boat roughly 7 to 8 years after contract award, if chosen.
Given that we’re potentially looking at 12 to 15 years before boats 7 through 12 would even be delivered for Canada, that seems like more than enough time to complete the detailed engineering and design work. The real issue would obviously be the funding required.
I see your point on the timeline, but I think you're underestimating the disruption that a hull insert causes, even with preliminary design work done.
TKMS having a preliminary design is a good starting point, sure. But 'preliminary design' is a long way from a production-ready engineering package. You're talking about re-running structural analysis, stress tests, hydrodynamic modeling, and probably most critically, re-certifying the damn thing with the classification society. That alone can take years.
More importantly, you don't just build the first six, then magically switch tooling and assembly lines for the next six. Shipyards build in flights for a reason. You'd either have to:
Pause production mid-stream to retool for the new design (killing your learning curve and driving up costs), or
Run parallel production lines for two different variants (which is a logistical and cost nightmare for a program this small).
By the time boat 7 is being built, the yard might still be fitting out boat 5. You'd have two different sets of parts, two different training requirements for the crew, and two different maintenance profiles for the RCN.
So yes, the calendar might say 12-15 years is enough time to draw it. But the reality of shipbuilding says introducing a second variant halfway through is a recipe for cost overruns and delays. Funding is one hurdle, but industrial complexity is another beast entirely.
Another point is that TKMS order book is already full. TKMS isn't going to pause those production lines, hire a bunch of extra engineers, and go back to the drawing board to design a stretched expeditionary variant just because Canada might want six of them down the road. We'd be begging for a custom version while they're busy churning out boats for paying customers with firm contracts.
I bet Joly is one of them pushing for this, it’s sounds right up her alley. Please pick one. I prefer the 212cd but I’d much prefer 12 KSS III over a split order. We must get this right, the future of our country depends on it.
Not Joly at the least. Its apparently someone in the PMO.
Is Gerry Butts still around there?
Not in the PMO
Just saw Stephen Fuhr made a statement that the government will not split the order (today, March 5th). Hopefully that puts the rumors to bed!
But he also left it open ended, stating until the PMO says otherwise.
Noah, since you have done a pile of research on the options, any chance you could chime in and help solidify some of the comments and discussion. Based on my research and reading yours, here are my takes on the information from the comments.
SIZE
It is my understanding both are essentially the same size. KSS is 9.6m and 212 is 10.0m. So no difference in beam (Victoria class is 7.2m). KSS is 15m longer which is due to 15m worth of VLS launchers. Minus launchers they are same length.
RANGE
10,000nmi for KSS and unknown for 212. 212A had a range of 8,000nmi with lead-acid batteries so have to assume the 212CD with LFP batteries will be between 8,000nmi and 10,000nmi like KSS with lithium batteries.
DEPTH
250m-400m for KSS (i have seen different numbers), 250m-300m for 212 (again have seen different numbers). slight advantage for KSS but after about 250m does it matter LOL.
As for shallow depths, cross rudders for KSS, X rudders for 212. Some argue X better for shallows but not sure how much or how much stock I put in that. If you are that close to the bottom for it to make a difference you probably have bigger issues.
CREW
40-50 for KSS, 30-40 for 212. So crew comfort and amenities is same.
STEALTH
Magnetic steel with anechoic coating for KSS and Non-magnetic Pressure hull with diamond outer hull for 212. 212 should be better at avoiding MAG detection.
ARMAMENT
Same except KSS has VLS. Both can fire land based missiles (tomahawks), KSS just has 2 options for launching (tube and VLS). With 10 VLS cells KSS can most likely carry 10 more weapons. Torpedoes are both heavy variants and hit equally as hard.
ELECTRONICS
Sensor and periscope packages are both top notch. Both AIP. CMS both top notch. SAME, same, same but different manufacturers. Don't think anything to see here.
I would welcome anyone who has better info or has clarifications.
The KSS-III is a single hull which means it's interior is the size they claim. The 212CD is a dual hull with the outer hull being significantly larger for the hull shaping stealth, meaning the interior pressure hull (livable/useful space) is much smaller than the measurements given.
I guess it depends on your definition of signicant. From everything I have seen it is a meter at most. Which would put KSS at 9.6 and 212 at 9ish. 600mm or 2ft is not significant, but I have also not seen proper x-sections of both. So much of usable interior room will depend on dimensions of interior ribbing on the hull, mechanical, electrical, etc. I am going by only real dimension we are given. Beam. I have only seen ~10m for the outer shape and 10m beam on wiki. If you have better sources, I would love to see them as am really ointerested in the topic of CPSP.
Think of it this way. Even with a dual hull, (outer and inner pressure) the 212CD is 1100 tons lighter surfaced. Even though the KSS-III has one hull. 89m for the true size single hull vs 73 m for just the outer hull of 212cd that's not the inner hull. Which means the inside hull length difference is probably even greater than the 16 m claimed on the exterior.
The difference in length really has nothing to do with the non-pressure hull. That difference is entirely due to the 10 VLS cell section that the KSS has that the 212 does not. I would hazard a guess that this is what also accounts for the weight difference.
An 8 cell strike length mk-41 is a little over 26000 pounds or 13 tons assuming the 10 Korean cells are even double that weight being slightly larger at around 26 to 30 tons does not account for the 1100 ton difference.. not even close.
The 10m figure is the beam at the widest point of the hull which is actually toward the bottom in the 212CD not the center, the inner hull is circular meaning smaller than the center of the hull. So in assuming based on shape and pictures shown is probably closer to a 7 m beam and that doesn't even mention the true length of pressure hull. My guess is the pressure hull is smaller than that of the Victoria's hull that even our Navy said was too small for our needs. But yes it would be something to research.
Every picture of the 212 shows the beam in line with the prop, not the bottom, at least that I have seen.
I tried to share an infographic but it won't let me. If you search up the 212CD images you'll find an infographic comparing it to the 212A where it shows a frontal profile that shows the widest point at 10m far below center mass of hull. Pretty sure this was a TKMS release and it is referred to as a diamond shaped hull in reverse which also would mean the widest point would not be center if you've ever seen pics or drawings of diamonds you'd know what I'm referring to.
LOL that was the one I was looking at also. I decided to try a different approach and copied that image into my Bluebeam software, calibrated the scale to match the dimensions. The largest pressure hull you can fit in that shape is 8.4 meters which is about 1.2 meters smaller than KSS. Also if you look at the side view of that picture, the prop centerline is just above the side crease from the diamond shape. This matches up with the centerline of my 8.4 meter circle in Bluebeam. So I think we could probably fairly accurately say that that is probably close to the actual pressure measurement. We may have figured something out here. lol
KSS-III Batch II has been listed to have a standard crew requirement of 33 personnel, while the Type 212CD is listed as 28. Confusion about KSS-III Batch II comes down to the fact that the Korean submarine has a substantial amount of additional space set aside aboard to embark additional personnel for training or other roles as required by the CPSP's RFI. It does not seem like the German design has this sort of extra space built into the design, and would need to set up ad-hoc berthing space somewhere inside the submarine like the torpedo room to fit any extra staff.
Leaf, where did you read about the "substantial" amount of additional space. KSS-III is only longer because of the VLS cells. It has no more usable interior space than the 212CD. It would not even have made it this far if it didn't have the additional berths as required by RFP (see Noah's article)