Replacing the Subs

[Navy_Pete]

KSS III advantages in this bid:
-speed of procurement/build
-currently they have more cooperation with domestic industry (that may change)
-LI battery technology
-larger submarine with longer range
-vertical launch capability

German advantages in this bid:
-NATO doctrine/training for our submariners will continue
-arguably the stealthiest submarine in the world
-smaller crew sizes
-smaller sub can hide in more places
-larger user group
-German AIP technology

I'm not sure the LiB is actually an advantage, it's still a rapidly developing technology and the impacts when it goes wrong would be fatal for the crew. The safer versions 'only' release massive amounts of hot, toxic gases instead of burning, except the subs have no way to effectively vent it, so can easily build up to explosive levels.

Both look like great options generally, just not sure LiB is the way to go at all on subs, when we haven't gotten it figured out on surface ships for UPSs, let alone large energy storage.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I'm not sure the LiB is actually an advantage, it's still a rapidly developing technology and the impacts when it goes wrong would be fatal for the crew. The safer versions 'only' release massive amounts of hot, toxic gases instead of burning, except the subs have no way to effectively vent it, so can easily build up to explosive levels.

Both look like great options generally, just not sure LiB is the way to go at all on subs, when we haven't gotten it figured out on surface ships for UPSs, let alone large energy storage.

Both the German and Korean offerings are coming with LiB, alongside a wider trend across conventional western submarines to move towards that technology more generally. Japan has went all in on LiB on their conventional submarines, Italy is putting them into their U212 NFS class, the French Barracuda variant being built for the Dutch has them and countless others are developing/considering them.

Seems like the technology is already becoming widespread and will only become more common.

 

[PHughes]

I'm not sure the LiB is actually an advantage, it's still a rapidly developing technology and the impacts when it goes wrong would be fatal for the crew. The safer versions 'only' release massive amounts of hot, toxic gases instead of burning, except the subs have no way to effectively vent it, so can easily build up to explosive levels.

Both look like great options generally, just not sure LiB is the way to go at all on subs, when we haven't gotten it figured out on surface ships for UPSs, let alone large energy stor

 

[PHughes]

Both subs have LIB technology

TKMS explicitly states they will meet the RCN delivery schedule

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

TKMS can't even do that for their own navies and it is a slow rate production. How they basically kick production up three fold and keep everyone's schedule is beyond me. But I would be happy to be proven wrong.

and many companies do their best to hide their specs other than to purchasers.

No, ALL companies hide their specs. There isn't a single submarine out there for which the specs you read in publicly available for consumption are the actual specs. Those last ones are only known to the company and the end user.

The Koreans haven't went as far as to offer to build the ships themselves domestically, primarily because the RCN has made it clear that it doesn't want full domestic production.

I didn't say they would. I just pointed out that they have an incentive from their own defense need to have available, not necessarily fully operational, an offshore site should the need arise from them, and this is a good opportunity for them to do so.

Sticking with existing NATO compatible training with the Germans would definitely be better/easier, but it seems like the Koreans have an answer to the question.

NATO compatible training is not related to submarine types, other than either nuclear or not for propulsion. "NATO" doesn't do nuclear. The individual navies with nuclear submarines do so independently. We (Canada) tarin our submariners to operate the boats the British way, with some American methods thrown in because we operate British submarines and use some US gear. NATO, with things such as Perisher, only comes in to train on common tactics and strategy - not in any way on how to operate the submarine or equipment onboard. Having Korean designed submarines would not change that in any way. After all we are currently the only navy in NATO to operate Victoria class submarines and it's not stopping us from operating within NATO's submarine world.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Both subs have LIB technology

TKMS explicitly states they will meet the RCN delivery schedule

Thanks, I didn't know that, should be interesting to see. Hopefully don't learn any hard lessons from a disaster.

Both ISI and VSY expcitly said they would meet the RCN/CCG schedules as well, which even the GoC knew wasn't going to happen as the schedule was for bidding and not realistic.

The current 212 production plan seems pretty realistic, so if we can get one of the ones slated for Germany or Norway that seems more likely to actually happen, and when we're talking 5 years after the decision (projected for 2027), 2032 is still incredibly short period of time to get contracts sorted, crews selected and trained and other things ready to actually accept it.

If TKMS actually met the RCN 'delivery schedule' we'd be completely unprepared.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Thanks, I didn't know that, should be interesting to see. Hopefully don't learn any hard lessons from a disaster.

Both ISI and VSY expcitly said they would meet the RCN/CCG schedules as well, which even the GoC knew wasn't going to happen as the schedule was for bidding and not realistic.

The current 212 production plan seems pretty realistic, so if we can get one of the ones slated for Germany or Norway that seems more likely to actually happen, and when we're talking 5 years after the decision (projected for 2027), 2032 is still incredibly short period of time to get contracts sorted, crews selected and trained and other things ready to actually accept it.

If TKMS actually met the RCN 'delivery schedule' we'd be completely unprepared.

I thought that I read today that the date is now 2026, not 2027.

Also coming out of the meeting with Carney in Kiel:

"A company slide show presentation showed a delivery timeline with a first sub ready for Canada in 2034, then a second in 2036 and a third in 2037."

Canada narrows choice of new submarine suppliers to Germany, South Korea

BERLIN — Canada has narrowed down its shopping list for its next fleet of submarines to those made by two suppliers, Germany’s Thyssen Krupp Marine Systems and South Korea’s Hanwha Ocean Co.

ca.finance.yahoo.com

Which is completely different than this:

Burkhard, who praised the cost savings for Germany and Norway in terms of supply and maintenance, said if Canada were to join the program it's possible the first Canadian boat could arrive in the 2032-33 timeframe.

Canada narrows choices for new submarines to German and South Korean bidders | RCI

PM Carney meeting chancellor, attending business roundtable in Berlin.

ici.radio-canada.ca

 

[Navy_Pete]

I thought that I read today that the date is now 2026, not 2027.

2027 was mentioned in the CBC article; https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carney-germany-trade-security-submarines-1.7617600 as a decision date, but either way that's not much time for both companies to put in some detailed bids and also figure out contract negotiations for some of the critical things around IP (which drives what maintenance we can do) and other sticking points.

I imagine the 2035 date from the company is based on existing schedule, so they would need to get some kind of agreement from both Germany and Norway to change the delivery order, which they may be happy to do as having more boats of the class in operation makes supportability and in service support a lot more sustainable, along with the geopolitics of having closer relations between Canada and Europe.

If we go down that route, would be interesting to see if we also join the program for the Tyrfing anti-ship missile that Germany and Norway are co-developing and may have a variant for the 212.

Either way, still can't believe how fast this is moving; if F35 or any of the other big procurements had gone this way we'd already have new jets sitting around waiting for us to build the hangars and maintenance facilities.

The SK option also seems great on paper, but less realistic to deliver as promised. Maybe we can split the difference, as they have a lot of great equipment that the army can really use, and Germans do kind of have a history with submarines.

Burkhard, who praised the cost savings for Germany and Norway in terms of supply and maintenance, said if Canada were to join the program it's possible the first Canadian boat could arrive in the 2032-33 timeframe.

Slipping into the production line at this point would likely involve redesignating one of the submarines already earmarked for either Germany or Norway.

"I think there are opportunities to debate if one of those is maybe the first Canadian one," Burkhard told CBC News.

Although, he said, much depends on the Canadian government and how swiftly it moves.

Carney has suggested in the past that the government would like to have a decision on the submarine project by 2027.

The Type 212CD is a big boat. It is 73 metres in length, 2,800 tonnes when submerged and has four torpedo tubes

 

[Czech_pivo]

2027 was mentioned in the CBC article; https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carney-germany-trade-security-submarines-1.7617600 as a decision date, but either way that's not much time for both companies to put in some detailed bids and also figure out contract negotiations for some of the critical things around IP (which drives what maintenance we can do) and other sticking points.

I imagine the 2035 date from the company is based on existing schedule, so they would need to get some kind of agreement from both Germany and Norway to change the delivery order, which they may be happy to do as having more boats of the class in operation makes supportability and in service support a lot more sustainable, along with the geopolitics of having closer relations between Canada and Europe.

If we go down that route, would be interesting to see if we also join the program for the Tyrfing anti-ship missile that Germany and Norway are co-developing and may have a variant for the 212.

Either way, still can't believe how fast this is moving; if F35 or any of the other big procurements had gone this way we'd already have new jets sitting around waiting for us to build the hangars and maintenance facilities.

The SK option also seems great on paper, but less realistic to deliver as promised. Maybe we can split the difference, as they have a lot of great equipment that the army can really use, and Germans do kind of have a history with submarines.

I now remember where I read the 2026 date - Noah in his output from today is saying,
“ While the government has not provided an updated timeline, ot is my understanding that a contract award by Fall 2026 is now expected, two years ahead of schedule to what was originally anticipated.”

So basically 13 months from now if he’s correct.

 

[PHughes]

TKMS can't even do that for their own navies and it is a slow rate production. How they basically kick production up three fold and keep everyone's schedule is beyond me. But I would be happy to be proven wrong.



No, ALL companies hide their specs. There isn't a single submarine out there for which the specs you read in publicly available for consumption are the actual specs. Those last ones are only known to the company and the end user.



I didn't say they would. I just pointed out that they have an incentive from their own defense need to have available, not necessarily fully operational, an offshore site should the need arise from them, and this is a good opportunity for them to do so.



NATO compatible training is not related to submarine types, other than either nuclear or not for propulsion. "NATO" doesn't do nuclear. The individual navies with nuclear submarines do so independently. We (Canada) tarin our submariners to operate the boats the British way, with some American methods thrown in because we operate British submarines and use some US gear. NATO, with things such as Perisher, only comes in to train on common tactics and strategy - not in any way on how to operate the submarine or equipment onboard. Having Korean designed submarines would not change that in any way. After all we are currently the only navy in NATO to operate Victoria class submarines and it's not stopping us from operating within NATO's submarine world.

Since TKMS totally updated their original yard and bought a 2nd construction facility, the production rate of Type 212 CD boats for Norway & Germany has ++ increased and they are ahead of schedule.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I now remember where I read the 2026 date - Noah in his output from today is saying,
“ While the government has not provided an updated timeline, ot is my understanding that a contract award by Fall 2026 is now expected, two years ahead of schedule to what was originally anticipated.”

So basically 13 months from now if he’s correct.

Government time estimates are weird; if that was changed to Winter 2026 would be anywhere from Oct/Nov 26 to April/May 2027. Either way, that's exceptionally fast for what is shaping up to be the largest procurement in Canadian history as well as a strategic defence partnership.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The SK option also seems great on paper, but less realistic to deliver as promised. Maybe we can split the difference, as they have a lot of great equipment that the army can really use, and Germans do kind of have a history with submarines.

I get the feeling the SK's are more likley to meet our schedules than the Germans. It was not long ago that all 6 of their operational subs, were not operational and awaiting parts.

 

[PHughes]

8 + years ago

Budget cuts will do that

As the CF well knows

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The Koreans have put out the offer to bring Canadian sailors over to Korea to undertake training on their own submarines even before our boats are delivered, alongside setting up training facilities domestically in Canada. Sticking with existing NATO compatible training with the Germans would definitely be better/easier, but it seems like the Koreans have an answer to the question.

KSS-III Batch 2 apparently has a standard crew requirement of 33 people, but can accommodate up to 50 if required. Figures I've found for Type 212CD range from between 27 and 30+, so the crew sizes seem like either a wash or require additional clarification.

Something else to take into consideration is the KSS-III's VLS are potentially not just for purely offensive weapon systems, but could be considered for unmanned payloads in the future with its expansive cell diameters.

If SK wins, I see two options for us:

They start building the repair/maintenance facility on the East Coast first, with all the Victorias concentrated on the west coast. Initial training takes place in SK and then the first sub to the East Coast, with the Vic being decommissioned as the 2nd sub arrives. With the West Coast yard now being modified to support KSS

The other option is that as soon as training on SK subs is underway, the Vics are decommissioned and the West coast yard starts being modified to meet the needs of the KSS.

The Vic's are decommissioned, either scrapped or if the Aussies are feeling truly fu*ked by AUKAS, we can offer for free the Vic's and all the support gear to them, so they can supplement their aging Collin's. (Or the Aussies ask for the Germans for some 212CD as a "Interim" sub.

 

[Czech_pivo]

If SK wins, I see two options for us:

They start building the repair/maintenance facility on the East Coast first, with all the Victorias concentrated on the west coast. Initial training takes place in SK and then the first sub to the East Coast, with the Vic being decommissioned as the 2nd sub arrives. With the West Coast yard now being modified to support KSS

The other option is that as soon as training on SK subs is underway, the Vics are decommissioned and the West coast yard starts being modified to meet the needs of the KSS.

The Vic's are decommissioned, either scrapped or if the Aussies are feeling truly fu*ked by AUKAS, we can offer for free the Vic's and all the support gear to them, so they can supplement their aging Collin's. (Or the Aussies ask for the Germans for some 212CD as a "Interim" sub.

Question - not being from Halifax and having only been there once - is there enough vacate or brownfield sites left on Halifax harbour to build a large enough maintenance/repair facility to handle 2-3 subs at a time?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

What’s your sales pitch for a boat with a design optimized for the Retaliation Strike Mission, that has an older generation AIP technology, is not optimized for stealth or cold water operations, has a VLS capability that is not required or even desired by the RCN, is built in yards with a relatively short history of building submarines with a resulting thin ILS book, that is an orphan design with no future planned upgrade path, that is not NATO compliant and that is built in a nation that has a questionable level of political stability ?

Germany
Has a unstable government that changes frequently and has a history of putting restrictions on it's weapon systems

Has been unable to effectively support it's own fleet of subs.

Has a history of over promising and under delivery

Is not willing to transfer technology or move sub component production outside of the country at a level the SK would

 

[Navy_Pete]

Question - not being from Halifax and having only been there once - is there enough vacate or brownfield sites left on Halifax harbour to build a large enough maintenance/repair facility to handle 2-3 subs at a time?

Not in the dockyard area, but they are looking more down by Shearwater (which may need another firehall and other things). Will be a much better commute at least for a lot of people, and then hopefully surface ships won't be fighting for the same FMF resources and playing second fiddle to them like we do now. All kind of depends if we actually commit to 8 or 12 subs though, as well as figure out where they are based. Esquimalt is even tighter for space, so maybe make sense to look at a standalone sub squadron base on the West coast, and consider the mainland as well.

Halifax in general is already going to need significant infra upgrades to the dockyard for the surface fleet, which is ongoing, but also the training schools, ammo depot and a lot of the Shearwater RCAF related infra is on the wishlist.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Not in the dockyard area, but they are looking more down by Shearwater (which may need another firehall and other things). Will be a much better commute at least for a lot of people, and then hopefully surface ships won't be fighting for the same FMF resources and playing second fiddle to them like we do now. All kind of depends if we actually commit to 8 or 12 subs though, as well as figure out where they are based. Esquimalt is even tighter for space, so maybe make sense to look at a standalone sub squadron base on the West coast, and consider the mainland as well.

Halifax in general is already going to need significant infra upgrades to the dockyard for the surface fleet, which is ongoing, but also the training schools, ammo depot and a lot of the Shearwater RCAF related infra is on the wishlist.

Add to the mix 12 Corvettes at 85-105m in length and I could see the need for another base on the WC, as well as Shearwater I guess.

 

[PHughes]

Germany
Has a unstable government that changes frequently and has a history of putting restrictions on it's weapon systems

Has been unable to effectively support it's own fleet of subs.

Has a history of over promising and under delivery

Is not willing to transfer technology or move sub component production outside of the country at a level the SK would

Amusing

 

[Underway]

What’s your sales pitch for a boat with a design optimized for the Retaliation Strike Mission,

Not a mission that exists in real life. This isn't Helldivers or XCOM (where that mission exists, only in video games). I think your either referring too a second strike capability (which is a WMD concept) or misundertanding that the KSS III VLS ballistic missiles are actually designed to be secure bunker busters that can't be pre targeted by the North, providing redundancy and survivability to South Korea in that area.

that has an older generation AIP technology,

Well batteries are the oldest AIP technology that exits in submarines. Older isn't necessarily worse. I think the German AIP is clunky, expensive and like a lot of German engineering over designed. And frankly I suspect that with LI tonnage replacing AIP tonnage we'll hit the indiscretion rate we need with no AIP required. On both submarines

is not optimized for stealth or cold water operations,

Incorrect on both accounts. All submarine operations are cold water operation, its 2-4 degrees at 200 feet down most places. If you're saying the Korean submarines are not as stealthy at German ones then I would agree with that.

has a VLS capability that is not required or even desired by the RCN,

Land attack capability is required by the RCN. VLS does this better than horizontally launched ordinance that Germany will be able to bid.

is built in yards with a relatively short history of building submarines with a resulting thin ILS book,

Sure. Twist it that way if you like. But given Korean ship build chops I'm not going to bet against it.

that is an orphan design with no future planned upgrade path,

Not true, there are further batches coming with upgraded aspects (like more VLS etc...). And it automatically stops being an orphan design when we buy it. And frankly ships are almost all orphan designs, its the equipment that is inside that is a concern, not the total package.

that is not NATO compliant

NATO has build standards, and Canada has build standards. And at the end of the day those are guidlines. As long as the comms are compliant.

and that is built in a nation that has a questionable level of political stability ?

Ok... not sure where you're going with this, but Korea has shown decades of political stability overall. Society hasn't collapsed or been overthrown. They deliver their products on time. The whos and whatfors of their internal party politics and shenanigans don't concern me.

Either way, still can't believe how fast this is moving;

Neither can I and I'm Mr. Glass is Half full.