On Spliting the Submarine Fleet

Noah Note

I kinda told myself I would have to write this yesterday. However, I didn't wanna put it in the other article as I thought it might take a bit away from the discussion we were having. Anyways, splitting the submarine fleet... In all the celebration on Monday, it seems like this little thing kinda got away from the discussion.

I have spoken before on splitting the fleet and its issues. I don't wanna repeat for a ninth time, but I feel I need to jump in with everyone on this. At the least, I feel I need to have a proper post people can go to and read for themselves. That's mostly because Substack search sucks.

I don't think I need to go over the significant issues with trying to maintain both the KSS-III and 212CD simultaneously. Different combat management systems, different battery systems, different AIP systems, different almost everything when it comes to the internals...

They don't even run the same MTU engines! Someone said a week or so ago that they did, but they don't. I know that feels very general, but supply chains are important. Even with six submarines, the economics of supporting two almost nearly separate submarines, each operating nearly completely different subsystems, is completely laughable.

Especially if you're trying to leverage this for domestic production and economic investment. Both shipyards and respective governments have been quite clear in any conversation I have had. They expect an order of at least eight, but are basing their bids on a maximum of twelve.

The amount of people hoping that a split fleet will result in some sort of equal economic leverage on both sides is laughable. Six submarines, sadly, is a lot for us, but laughable in the global context. Twelve submarines? That's the largest single order in decades. Six? It's substantial, but not overtly special in the grand scheme of things. Certainly, no one will be happy with six submarines being the final order.

Just ask Oliver Burkhard, CEO of TKMS, who was on Power and Politics last night:

"Well, it's a Canada subverting that if they decide this, then they decide it. Would I recommend it? No. Because we have made a lot of teaming agreements with several Canadian companies. Last one today, I just came from the signing with CAE. But there's also Cohere, Marman, and other ones. And of course the benefits of that cooperation would be reduced if the number of the submarines would be reduced and coming to the advantages of this program, especially when it comes to interoperability.

So being able to change the crews and having the same parts and the same maintenance as the Norwegians and the Germans have, and by the way, the Singaporeans and the Indians where the Prime Minister is just present at the moment. I think that would be not a very good decision."

There is no reality to me where the economic benefits justify splitting a fleet for two submarines that will end up costing significantly more to operate together. Crews will need to be trained on a specific submarine, limiting the available personnel available overall. Training a submariner is a years-long effort.

Both companies would have separate maintenance facilities and likely separate companies contracted to their maintenance. Hanwha is utilizing Babcock, but I wanna stress you couldn't use the same facilities. The use of non-magnetic steel in the 212CD requires a sterile environment free of potential contaminants.

The KSS-III, being made of the magnetic HY-100, presents a significant risk if both are maintained in the same facilities, as the iron dust, shavings, and particulate matter generated during standard maintenance on the KSS-III could easily embed into the 212CD's hull. This cross-contamination would create localized magnetic anomalies, entirely defeating the purpose of its non-magnetic design.

"Well, just build four facilities! Two each! Then we can get experience with both!"

A very sound idea when said, but it sadly also runs into issues. In a time of an already strained workforce, when the shipbuilding industry is already struggling to retain and attract talent, it'll be extremely difficult to train up essentially two different workforces, each trained to maintain fundamentally different platforms. Platforms with about as little overlap as possible.

It's not impossible, but it adds another level of difficulty when you remember that us cutting the order means less investment incentive. It means less potential economic benefits, the one thing that we're really trying to secure from this. So on top of less economic benefit, we're now looking at a significant increase in cost related to In-Service Support and Maintenance.

"Well, just choose the best systems from one/each and standardize!"

So Canadize, the same thing we hate, which will inevitably cut off even more reason for investment from secondary suppliers like LIG NEX1 or Hensoldt. Then add on the delays this will cause, the grievances, all to give both partners a feel-good because we're scared of choosing?

And that's the thing. I don't know what the point is. I don't know why someone really loves this idea. It is one person that's really pushing this idea, and the fact that it's allowed to continue to fester despite repeated denial is annoying. I don't know why. Do they really believe they can hold both countries to account with a smaller order than promised? Are they scared of alienation?

There is no benefit to this. None. Not with six, and sure, maybe with 10 or 12 or however much each it would be better and easier. Where do you sacrifice? River-class? CDC? You have to sacrifice to find the personnel and room for such a fleet. I'll also note I have seen zero indication of more than twelve submarines. It's far more likely we get eight than more than twelve at this point, because at least it's a conversation.

You can't base choices and discussions on opinions and fantasy. You can't expect more than what is said. Right now, the argument for splitting is six submarines. That's it. Unless the fleet mix changes sometime soon, and we push it through.

Under the current situation, with the current expectation, there is zero benefit to going with both. Neither provides a significant capability difference to justify both to me. If you want a bigger sub than a 212CD? Start talking about the CD E. You want VLS? TKMS will do it.

Want smaller than the KSS-III? There are Hanwha options. Unless you absolutely need certain features like the diamond-shaped hull, by which point you have your pick. There is no justification to split in this environment.

You get a more difficult, restrictive fleet that will cost more and provide less economic benefit over the lifetime of the project. You will create two classes in the submarine force that are near isolated and separate from each other, unless you take the even more difficult option of standardizing equipment.

I'm sorry, but under the current environment, I implore people to shut this conversation down. It is needless without a change to the fleet mix. It is downright harmful to the project and the potential economic benefits that come with it. I apologize for ranting on this, but too many conversations are chasing dreams and flowers.

Chris Bowen, my dear friend, loves a split fleet. He also recognizes that it will require significant sacrifice elsewhere and an increase in numbers. We can have that conversation, if you want, but if the idea is only six each? You're pushing for a self-inflicted loss that will fundamentally put us on the wrong course.

Less economic benefits, more difficult to maintain, working with two OEMs, multiple overlapping suppliers... all for what? To keep everyone happy, even though this choice will piss them off anyway? No matter what, someone will be mad. That's a given. It's something you sadly have to expect with such a large project at stake.

So to those that want this, I'm sorry, but I just can't see it. Not unless we fundamentally shift what we want and what the future RCN looks like. Something I don't see us doing.