- Reaction score
- 7,083
- Points
- 1,160
Do they all have to be crewed?
TKMS Type 212CD (Victoria class replacement megathread)
- Thread starter Spencer100
- Start date
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 6,097
- Points
- 1,040
No. At any given time, four or five of them would be in deep maintenance/refit in the hands of a yard.
- Reaction score
- 4,411
- Points
- 1,040
Two a year with two being mothballed at the 12-15 year mark. Keep them until the 24-30 mark and sell off the half used ships to friendly nations.
In event of war we can have a 48-60 ship fleet of fairly modern well taken care of ships available plus facilities capable of making them at a moments notice.
In peace we have spares and options as well as stable jobs and realistically cost effective manufacturing due to constant known demand/supply.
and you can use the mothballed fleet for loads of training opportunities; win, win
- Reaction score
- 7,083
- Points
- 1,160
Lack of clarity on my part. Do we need 22 x 212CD's or could it be a mix of 212CD's and XLUUV's for example?
I guess it really depends on the concept of operations.
- Reaction score
- 4,411
- Points
- 1,040
The cynic in me seems to be rewarded. Part of the reason I think they went with Germany is because they want to cut the order down once the panic from the States is over.
If they went with South Korea I suspect they wouldn’t have the time frame to cancel some as they would likely get them done quicker.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 21,022
- Points
- 1,260
I think the post trump effect will reduce more than submarine numbers, sadly.
- Reaction score
- 9,899
- Points
- 1,210
This was always going to be the way. I thought it was going to be 4 + 4 +4. You don't order 12 ships. You order in batches.
It's cost control and allows to restructure the contract in between as well as evolve the ships design between batches.
It never was 12. It was up to 12 (min 8 was subtext).
- Reaction score
- 9,038
- Points
- 1,260
I guess that whoever in the RCN who wrote the report saying we needed 22 subs really should have fudged the numbers to say 30-34 and then maybe we would be getting 12 subs.
Oh well, lesson learned. File it away and dust it off in 35yrs when we'll be doing this all over again.
Still can't shake the feeling that we'll never see 15 Rivers.
- Reaction score
- 2,053
- Points
- 1,160
Speaking of South Korea, they just launched there second KS-III Batch 2 submarine.
South Korea Launches Second KSS-III Batch-II Submarine, ROKS Seo Hui - Naval News
The Republic of Korea Navy held a launching ceremony for Seo Hui, the second Jang Bogo(KSS)-III Batch-II submarine, at Hanwha Ocean’s shipyard in Geoje on November 3.
www.navalnews.com
Gordon Dundas/
Member
- Reaction score
- 291
- Points
- 780
Once Trump's gone I wouldn't be surprised if the Defence budget gets gutted. If we're serious about dealing with Europe. We'll do it quietly and hope they either don't notice or don't care.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 21,022
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 7,554
- Points
- 1,120
I had that discussion last night - I pointed out that the only reason our budget rose in the recent past was because the orange dude called everyone out, and when things don't look so orange outside, there will be far less impetus to appease, and far less money thrown at looking to solve problems.
Someone mentioned being concerned about whether or not we get 15 RCDs....I don't know if we've ordered any of the long-lead items yet beyond the first 3. (Gearboxes/etc)
That will be a real indicator in my opinion.
Someone mentioned being concerned about whether or not we get 15 RCDs....I don't know if we've ordered any of the long-lead items yet beyond the first 3. (Gearboxes/etc)
That will be a real indicator in my opinion.
- Reaction score
- 7,083
- Points
- 1,160
Your spidey-senses were very close on this one..
- Reaction score
- 9,038
- Points
- 1,260
100%
I've seen nothing beyond the first 3 of anything.
I'm totally spit balling here, 6 Rivers, 12 CDC's, 8 Subs and 2 JSS is what we could end up with if you want to be a pessimist - remove 3 River's and you could be a worst case pessimist.
I'm not counting the AOPS because thy are not warships and if funding becomes an issue down the road, as well as crewing, stripping off the 25mm and selling off the high-end sensors/radar and poof - they are now a CCG vessel.
- Reaction score
- 2,264
- Points
- 1,160
I understand the pessimism, but “nothing beyond the first three” is not quite accurate. PSPC’s March 2025 briefing material explicitly included early procurement of selected long lead items for Batch 2. That does not guarantee fifteen Rivers or tell us whether particular gearboxes have been ordered, but there is evidence of procurement extending beyond the first three. You're also talking about an enormous period of time on the project.
As for six Rivers, twelve CDCs and eight submarines, we do not even know what the CDC will look like yet, let alone how many will be funded and built. Until we know its capabilities, cost and intended employment, assigning twelve to a hypothetical fleet is a bit premature.
Nor does removing the 25 mm and selling some sensors magically turn an AOPS into a Coast Guard vessel. The actual Coast Guard variants required modifications to meet civilian requirements and their intended missions. A transfer would also leave somebody paying to operate, maintain and crew them. Those requirements do not disappear with a change of paint.
Contracts, sustained funding, destroyers is speculation piled on speculation. Smaller ships cannot automatically replace the capabilities or deployment capacity lost by cutting the Rivers.
I also would not assume the political pressure disappears when Trump’s influence diminishes. Diminished does not mean gone, and the uncertainty surrounding American reliability could outlast him. I expect Carney will be invoking the spectre of an unpredictable United States to justify defence spending for years. That argument has political staying power beyond Trump himself.
On AOPS, saying “they are not warships” confuses their limited armament with their status and purpose. They are commissioned naval vessels conducting sovereignty patrols, military presence and support to operations. They have a different job from a destroyer, and should be judged against that job.
Having completed many Arctic deployments myself, I certainly count the ships that allow the Navy to operate there. Endurance, shipyard output and trained personnel are all worth watching closely. None of us should treat fifteen Rivers as inevitable. But there is a considerable distance between acknowledging that risk and assuming a fleet of three or six destroyers is where we are headed.
Similar threads
