Replacing the Subs

[suffolkowner]

Very good article. Looks like it will come down to what mission the RCN is prioritizing . . . A ++stealthy dedicated Hunter Killer boat for the ASW mission or a hybrid Boomer/Hunter Killer that provides exceptional land attack power projection.

His article makes multiple references to the KSS III boats L Ion battery feature, a technology also used by the Type 212 CD and makes no reference about the use of non-magnetic steel in the CD’s hull.

Still wouldn’t want to be the Snr RCN officer tasked with explaining to Parliament why they purchased a boat with a ballistic missile land attack capability that Parliament never authorized.

well they wont have to will they? Theyre not making the decision on their own.
Would you want to be the one to explain why you paid extra to remove the VLS?
Bought a sub that was less likely to meet delivery timetables?
A sub not in production?

 

[PHughes]

well they wont have to will they? Theyre not making the decision on their own.
Would you want to be the one to explain why you paid extra to remove the VLS?
Bought a sub that was less likely to meet delivery timetables?
A sub not in production?

Both the KSS III and the 212CD are currently in production .

Both firms have publicly stated they can meet the RCNs delivery schedule

 

[Colin Parkinson]

My guess is that if we go with the KSS-III, we get the VLS tubes, but not the missiles, certainty not early on and if we did, likley a decade down the road.

 

[suffolkowner]

Both the KSS III and the 212CD are currently in production .

Both firms have publicly stated they can meet the RCNs delivery schedule

are we getting the 212CD? I thought it was the CDE?

Airbus and Sikorsky made claims too Im sure

 

[Czech_pivo]

Both the KSS III and the 212CD are currently in production .

Both firms have publicly stated they can meet the RCNs delivery schedule

I think the Germans have agreed to only the timeline for the 1st sub, not subs 2-8 or 2-12.

 

[PHughes]

My guess is that if we go with the KSS-III, we get the VLS tubes, but not the missiles, certainty not early on and if we did, likley a decade down the road.

In an era of staggering deficits and huge demands on DND’s budget, paying for a technology/weapons system that we might use in X years down the road would be difficult decision to justify

 

[PHughes]

are we getting the 212CD? I thought it was the CDE?

Airbus and Sikorsky made claims too Im sure

CD

 

[suffolkowner]

In an era of staggering deficits and huge demands on DND’s budget, paying for a technology/weapons system that we might use in X years down the road would be difficult decision to justify

how much does it cost?

 

[PHughes]

are we getting the 212CD? I thought it was the CDE?

Airbus and Sikorsky made claims too Im sure

Sikorsky did make claims

And then the RCAF and the RCN wnet down the Engineering Chance Request rabbit hole and the schedule went sideways.

That whole Fly By Wire upgrade was a fiasco

 

[suffolkowner]

CD

well that seems disappointing

 

[PHughes]

well that seems disappointing

Why?

 

[suffolkowner]

Why?

wasnt the CDE supposed to have increased range? greater/better habitation?

 

[YZT580]

well they wont have to will they? Theyre not making the decision on their own.
Would you want to be the one to explain why you paid extra to remove the VLS?
Bought a sub that was less likely to meet delivery timetables?
A sub not in production?

been done before . In the 70's Transport Canada bought Jeep products for their tech and airport vehicles that came standard with AC. They paid a significant penalty to have the AC removed and a redesigned rad system as a result.

 

[OldSolduer]

been done before . In the 70's Transport Canada bought Jeep products for their tech and airport vehicles that came standard with AC. They paid a significant penalty to have the AC removed and a redesigned rad system as a result.

The CAF paid major auto makers to have the AM radios removed from Civvy pattern vehicles too - and paint them that god awful green

 

[Colin Parkinson]

wasnt the CDE supposed to have increased range? greater/better habitation?

That was my understanding as well, but no one has bought the design yet and so I guess it did not meet the "In service" requirement.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

In an era of staggering deficits and huge demands on DND’s budget, paying for a technology/weapons system that we might use in X years down the road would be difficult decision to justify

It will likley be cheaper to go with a sub as per the plans, than to ask for the VLS to be removed and then have to rejig the design, buoyancy calculations, etc. So unless we plan on putting something important in the VLS space, likley cheaper to have then "Fitted for SBM, but not loaded"

 

[PHughes]

That was my understanding as well, but no one has bought the design yet and so I guess it did not meet the "In service" requirement.

Bigger boat needs more power to move around, if a smaller boat meets the mission spec, the extra boat mass is just aburden

 

[FJAG]

The CAF paid major auto makers to have the AM radios removed from Civvy pattern vehicles too - and paint them that god awful green

God, we were stupid back then, weren't we?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Is it really so bad if we go the German route?

I simply don't believe they will deliver anything serviceable on their long timelines. Or on budget.

The SKs I believe will deliver on time and budget, and offer a whole host of other military hardware we can buy.

 

[NavyShooter]

If we go with the German CD option, we have a guaranteed delay of at least 12 years.

Probably 10 years for the next one....