IMO if the 212CD wins, then it only reinforces that the Liberals are not serious about having a full fleet of 12 Submarines anytime soon. Even if they could follow through on the first 4 by 2036 as they claim, in order to do that they have to push back Norwegian and German orders that would immediately fill the lines after those 4. This is why they have given no timekeeping as to it following 8 on the order. 4 subs gives us 1 active that's it. Only Hanwa promised to have 4 by 2035 and 1 per year following, for a full fleet by 2043. By the time TKMS delivers our final boat you'd be lucky if the the first 4 weren't ready for retirement. This alone IMO indicates that if the Government is serious about getting Canada a full 12 operational subs quickly so they can have 1 operational on each coast as they claim is needed, then going with KSS-III is the only option. Or are they intentionally dragging it out? Maybe to spread the procurement funds out further years and not have to actually sustain a fleet of 12 ever? Big promises while hiding that there will be less actual commitment to full capability and cost?
Unfortunately the Koreans have really shot themselves in the foot by announcing that they are moving on to nuclear powered subs, aiming to have the first launched mid 2030’s. Why would we buy what will soon become their legacy technology? Especially if we are the only customer.
Not sure if it will be enough but TKMS is ramping up production by expanding both Keil and Wismar yards, and will outsource actual segment production to Marmen in Quebec.
I disagree with the thinking that the KSS-III will be an orphan. Historically, a lot of ship designs only have around 4 ships to a class. It's only been recently that nations have started moving towards building off base designs. Even then localizations can make them not like for like between countries (just look at the differences between the Rivers-Hunters-Type 26s). With at least 15 ships projected, that's a pretty substantial hull base, which we could build off if Canada actually wanted to further develop its own sub building capability.
Fair point…orphan fleet never has a nice ring to it. I understood that the KSS-III program includes an order for 3 more batch III subs that completes the program for ROKN. I have brought up the possibility of ordering 6-8 KSS batch II’s and then partnering with the Koreans on their nuclear program but I think that’s a bridge too far at this point. Regardless I still think if we are serious about having an indo-pacific strategy then the path runs thru Korea. An order of 6-8 Korean subs really sends a message to the entire region that Canada is serious about diversifying and finding new partners. I don’t believe the Koreans would abandon their first export customer as this relationship is about much more than subs.
Unless….wait for it…they split the contract. 8 kss-III, 6 u212cd or vice versa with the bidder who gets smaller order getting an option for 2 more. Bingo… 9 subs delivered by 2036 and 12 by 2039 (if the Koreans get the bigger order). If the Germans win the bigger order then again 9 subs by 2036 or 12 by 2039 if option exercised for 2 more Korean kss-III’s with the remaining 4 u212cd’s delivered by 2046 for a maximum fleet of 16 subs. This second batch of u212cd’s will benefit from a more mature design and give the RCN the time it needs to handle a larger fleet.
I prefer the Korean sub but I don’t think Carney is gonna let the Germans/Norwegians/NATO walk away empty handed. Just spit-balling ideas that get the most subs here fast.
I just can't see a way forward on a split fleet. It makes no sense for a Navy our size, to have two entirely different operational training, maintenance facilities, maintenance training, parts sourcing, manning requirements that are not interchangeable coast to coast when needed. Not to mention decreasing the order to either will decrease the economic benefits either offers. Usually the most beneficial and costly part of the deal would be the first thing cut back. I don't see this happening TBH.
I am fully aware that a split fleet makes no sense for all the reasons you list. My push back is that this procurement isn’t really about subs per se as the sub themselves are merely a by-product of the political calculation to diversify our global partnerships. Maybe a split fleet when viewed thru this geopolitcal lense can be justified. If an increase in jobs, advanced manufacturing capabilities, diversified trading partnerships and massive economic offsets are the primary goals then this just might make sense. Yes we lose the efficiencies that go with a single fleet but we potentially gain a lot too. If the overall economic case makes sense then maybe a split fleet does too. And that’s a big if. Definitely a long shot.
Although if TKMS wins the full order then this will be a long procurement likely spanning 25 years. Stretching those dollars over many years. Not a total disaster given the other commitments we will be making over that same period. It will of course reveal our priorities. Budgets have limits afterall. Buy hey….we still get subs.
If it takes 25 years to get 12 subs they'll only be operating 3 at once for maybe a decade at the end of its procurement. They'd better already have another Sub lined up for replacement by then or risk going back to only defending 2 coasts at any given time.
IMO if the 212CD wins, then it only reinforces that the Liberals are not serious about having a full fleet of 12 Submarines anytime soon. Even if they could follow through on the first 4 by 2036 as they claim, in order to do that they have to push back Norwegian and German orders that would immediately fill the lines after those 4. This is why they have given no timekeeping as to it following 8 on the order. 4 subs gives us 1 active that's it. Only Hanwa promised to have 4 by 2035 and 1 per year following, for a full fleet by 2043. By the time TKMS delivers our final boat you'd be lucky if the the first 4 weren't ready for retirement. This alone IMO indicates that if the Government is serious about getting Canada a full 12 operational subs quickly so they can have 1 operational on each coast as they claim is needed, then going with KSS-III is the only option. Or are they intentionally dragging it out? Maybe to spread the procurement funds out further years and not have to actually sustain a fleet of 12 ever? Big promises while hiding that there will be less actual commitment to full capability and cost?
Unfortunately the Koreans have really shot themselves in the foot by announcing that they are moving on to nuclear powered subs, aiming to have the first launched mid 2030’s. Why would we buy what will soon become their legacy technology? Especially if we are the only customer.
Not sure if it will be enough but TKMS is ramping up production by expanding both Keil and Wismar yards, and will outsource actual segment production to Marmen in Quebec.
I disagree with the thinking that the KSS-III will be an orphan. Historically, a lot of ship designs only have around 4 ships to a class. It's only been recently that nations have started moving towards building off base designs. Even then localizations can make them not like for like between countries (just look at the differences between the Rivers-Hunters-Type 26s). With at least 15 ships projected, that's a pretty substantial hull base, which we could build off if Canada actually wanted to further develop its own sub building capability.
Fair point…orphan fleet never has a nice ring to it. I understood that the KSS-III program includes an order for 3 more batch III subs that completes the program for ROKN. I have brought up the possibility of ordering 6-8 KSS batch II’s and then partnering with the Koreans on their nuclear program but I think that’s a bridge too far at this point. Regardless I still think if we are serious about having an indo-pacific strategy then the path runs thru Korea. An order of 6-8 Korean subs really sends a message to the entire region that Canada is serious about diversifying and finding new partners. I don’t believe the Koreans would abandon their first export customer as this relationship is about much more than subs.
Unless….wait for it…they split the contract. 8 kss-III, 6 u212cd or vice versa with the bidder who gets smaller order getting an option for 2 more. Bingo… 9 subs delivered by 2036 and 12 by 2039 (if the Koreans get the bigger order). If the Germans win the bigger order then again 9 subs by 2036 or 12 by 2039 if option exercised for 2 more Korean kss-III’s with the remaining 4 u212cd’s delivered by 2046 for a maximum fleet of 16 subs. This second batch of u212cd’s will benefit from a more mature design and give the RCN the time it needs to handle a larger fleet.
I prefer the Korean sub but I don’t think Carney is gonna let the Germans/Norwegians/NATO walk away empty handed. Just spit-balling ideas that get the most subs here fast.
I just can't see a way forward on a split fleet. It makes no sense for a Navy our size, to have two entirely different operational training, maintenance facilities, maintenance training, parts sourcing, manning requirements that are not interchangeable coast to coast when needed. Not to mention decreasing the order to either will decrease the economic benefits either offers. Usually the most beneficial and costly part of the deal would be the first thing cut back. I don't see this happening TBH.
I am fully aware that a split fleet makes no sense for all the reasons you list. My push back is that this procurement isn’t really about subs per se as the sub themselves are merely a by-product of the political calculation to diversify our global partnerships. Maybe a split fleet when viewed thru this geopolitcal lense can be justified. If an increase in jobs, advanced manufacturing capabilities, diversified trading partnerships and massive economic offsets are the primary goals then this just might make sense. Yes we lose the efficiencies that go with a single fleet but we potentially gain a lot too. If the overall economic case makes sense then maybe a split fleet does too. And that’s a big if. Definitely a long shot.
Although if TKMS wins the full order then this will be a long procurement likely spanning 25 years. Stretching those dollars over many years. Not a total disaster given the other commitments we will be making over that same period. It will of course reveal our priorities. Budgets have limits afterall. Buy hey….we still get subs.
If it takes 25 years to get 12 subs they'll only be operating 3 at once for maybe a decade at the end of its procurement. They'd better already have another Sub lined up for replacement by then or risk going back to only defending 2 coasts at any given time.