The first pic of the model shows a standard form rudder, while the pic in the end shows the X-form rudder. It's this difference for export? Which would Canada receive?
I assume it's an error. Not having an X-shaped rudder would be a very strange change for the design, and we wouldn't want to change that even if we could.
The 212CD isn't much larger than the current Victoria class, however based on the fact that it is a duel hull that adds to the tonnage only giving the illusion of it being larger at all. I fear the smaller inner hull that is the true living/operating/battery/engine/weapons carrying size of the Submarine may actually be smaller than that of the Victoria class. So how can this possibly compete with the range (more batteries) and weapons carrying capacity of the KSS-III ? Not to mention the added crew stress of operating for long periods in a smaller boat living and operating in smaller quarters and compartments. Not sure why this is still being entertained as a viable solution.
I hadn't realized that they were going to build maintenance facilities on both coasts. I believe Hanwha was going to build on the West Coast only.
The problem I keep coming back to is the delivery times. I honestly believe Canada is going to be in a hot war situation within the next decade and this design might not be ready before then. At least the Koreans can probably get us 2 or 3 hulls before everything hits the fan. Canada can't dither on these defence decisions - they need hulls sooner than later and as many as possible.
I'm thinking more and more that Canada will split the order to accelerate the acquisition of hulls, with Hanwha building a maintenance facility on the West Coast and TKMS building a facility on the East Coast. Each of these subs come capabilities that do not overlap - the 212CD with its stealthiness and the KSS-III with its long-range offensive capabilities. Having subs compatible with Allies in each ocean (and mixing in the arctic) will allow us the best of both worlds and worth the tradeoff in logistics complexity.
Interesting that while speaking about creditable Arctic Sovereignty they show a map of Canada leaving out most of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago as Canadian territory.
The first pic of the model shows a standard form rudder, while the pic in the end shows the X-form rudder. It's this difference for export? Which would Canada receive?
I assume it's an error. Not having an X-shaped rudder would be a very strange change for the design, and we wouldn't want to change that even if we could.
The 212CD isn't much larger than the current Victoria class, however based on the fact that it is a duel hull that adds to the tonnage only giving the illusion of it being larger at all. I fear the smaller inner hull that is the true living/operating/battery/engine/weapons carrying size of the Submarine may actually be smaller than that of the Victoria class. So how can this possibly compete with the range (more batteries) and weapons carrying capacity of the KSS-III ? Not to mention the added crew stress of operating for long periods in a smaller boat living and operating in smaller quarters and compartments. Not sure why this is still being entertained as a viable solution.
I hadn't realized that they were going to build maintenance facilities on both coasts. I believe Hanwha was going to build on the West Coast only.
The problem I keep coming back to is the delivery times. I honestly believe Canada is going to be in a hot war situation within the next decade and this design might not be ready before then. At least the Koreans can probably get us 2 or 3 hulls before everything hits the fan. Canada can't dither on these defence decisions - they need hulls sooner than later and as many as possible.
I'm thinking more and more that Canada will split the order to accelerate the acquisition of hulls, with Hanwha building a maintenance facility on the West Coast and TKMS building a facility on the East Coast. Each of these subs come capabilities that do not overlap - the 212CD with its stealthiness and the KSS-III with its long-range offensive capabilities. Having subs compatible with Allies in each ocean (and mixing in the arctic) will allow us the best of both worlds and worth the tradeoff in logistics complexity.
Interesting that while speaking about creditable Arctic Sovereignty they show a map of Canada leaving out most of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago as Canadian territory.
Yes, I noticed that as well, perhaps they “iced” the archipelago over a little too much. The nifty video does show a more accurate map.
Oh man, love the website. Would have loved to see some kongsburg stuff, Ie NSM & Tyrfing but maybe that can some later. Love it