Replacing the Subs

[Czech_pivo]

For Canada, Germany will not restrict the submarines. We have an MOU and other agreements on naval cooperation with Germany. Lots of good cooperation there.

Good to know.
Doesn't change the known limitations on the timelines and capacity. No getting around this.

 

[calculus]

A plea from the Germans/Norwegians?

German, Norwegian officials urge Canada to join 'familiar family' in buying new submarines​

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/germany-norway-military-subs-1.7551526

Their bandwidth and timelines really just don't line up with our stated needs.

The German Navy will receive its first 212CD in 2028 while Norway is expected to be in the water the following year.

Oliver Burkhard, the CEO of tkMS, said should Canada join the current program it's possible the first Canadian boat could arrive within its requested timeframe. Although, he said, much depends on the Canadian government and how swiftly it moves.

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

"I think there are opportunities to debate if one of those is maybe the first Canadian one," he said.

The tkMS pitch also involves a plan to construct a submarine maintenance facility in Canada, creating jobs for Canadians — an important condition the Liberal government has repeatedly underlined.
On the OTHER hand;

..."the South Koreans went a step further and delivered a detailed bid, claiming they could deliver four boats to Canada by 2035 — the deadline set by the navy to receive its first new submarine."
Which of the 2 sets of statements above makes you feel that we'll have a boat(s) in the water, in use, ready to go by 2035?

Looks like they are offering the 212 CD. If that's the case, I vote for KSSIII. If it was the 212 CDE, I might be more inclined to "like" that offer. That was a substantially improved version of the CD, though I don't know how developed it was. It was offered to the Netherlands for their sub program, so presumably more than just a concept. Of note though, it lost to the Naval Group Barracuda variant "Orka", which is also a good candidate for Canada. Given all we are asking these boats to do (expeditionary, trans-oceanic, under ice), I think that all points to a bigger boat. Crew comfort also supports a larger vessel. To my eye the 212 CD seems too small. But, I'm not a submariner, so I'm open to criticism on that point. Personally. given the effort that the Korean have put into this so far, and all the promises they have made, I still find the KSSIII to be the most promising option.

 

[calculus]

Another example of how committed the Koreans are:

Hanwha Ocean signs MOUs with Canadian partners BlackBerry and L3Harris - Canadian Defence Review

Hanwha Ocean of South Korea, signed Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with Canadian partners BlackBerry and L3Harris for long-term cooperation on the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project. The KSS-III Canadian Patrol Submarine (KSS-III CPS) is proven, in-service, in-production, has the fastest...

canadiandefencereview.com

 

[Rainbow1910]

Looks like they are offering the 212 CD. If that's the case, I vote for KSSIII. If it was the 212 CDE, I might be more inclined to "like" that offer. That was a substantially improved version of the CD, though I don't know how developed it was. It was offered to the Netherlands for their sub program, so presumably more than just a concept. Of note though, it lost to the Naval Group Barracuda variant "Orka", which is also a good candidate for Canada. Given all we are asking these boats to do (expeditionary, trans-oceanic, under ice), I think that all points to a bigger boat. Crew comfort also supports a larger vessel. To my eye the 212 CD seems too small. But, I'm not a submariner, so I'm open to criticism on that point. Personally. given the effort that the Korean have put into this so far, and all the promises they have made, I still find the KSSIII to be the most promising option.

The only public changes from the CD to the CDE model is a 10m~ hull extension, it's not a substantial improvement.

 

[calculus]

The only public changes from the CD to the CDE model is a 10m~ hull extension, it's not a substantial improvement.

Which allows the extra fuel for increased endurance to give it Expeditionary capabilities, something Canada wants. Seems like a pretty substantial improvement to me.

 

[Rainbow1910]

Which allows the extra fuel for increased endurance to give it Expeditionary capabilities, something Canada wants. Seems like a pretty substantial improvement to me.

It is an improvement to be sure, but I personally reserve such language for more than just a endurance hull insertion on a design that hasn't even seen the water yet.

 

[suffolkowner]

if it makes the decision easier and quicker so much the better. Sign us up for the KSS-III

 

[PHughes]

Looks like they are offering the 212 CD. If that's the case, I vote for KSSIII. If it was the 212 CDE, I might be more inclined to "like" that offer. That was a substantially improved version of the CD, though I don't know how developed it was. It was offered to the Netherlands for their sub program, so presumably more than just a concept. Of note though, it lost to the Naval Group Barracuda variant "Orka", which is also a good candidate for Canada. Given all we are asking these boats to do (expeditionary, trans-oceanic, under ice), I think that all points to a bigger boat. Crew comfort also supports a larger vessel. To my eye the 212 CD seems too small. But, I'm not a submariner, so I'm open to criticism on that point. Personally. given the effort that the Korean have put into this so far, and all the promises they have made, I still find the KSSIII to be the most promising option.

Why would Canada want to buy a missile boat like the KSS III? What would the RCN do with subs designed primarily for the strategic retaliation mission?

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Why would Canada want to buy a missile boat like the KSS III? What would the RCN do with subs designed primarily for the strategic retaliation mission?

Strategic Deterrence?

 

[GK .Dundas]

Considering that we were looking at Tomahawks and still maybe are. They were as I recall tactical weapons with if I'm not mistaken a longer range then the Korean SMRBM s .
The only difference between them and the cruise missile is speed and size of warheads.
It actually might be quite handy to be able to drop several thousand pounds of explosives on target from some distance away.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Why would Canada want to buy a missile boat like the KSS III? What would the RCN do with subs designed primarily for the strategic retaliation mission?

They are designed as a multi-task sub, not just a retaliation weapon. Getting the KS-III Batch 2 , would make the RCN a force to be reckoned with. It would mean any opponent needs to spend a lot of resource to keep those subs away from it's assets. Once we have a bunch of RCD, KS-III and our JSS in the water, the RCN will be able to punch at a weight it hasn't seen likley since the Korean war.

 

[NavyShooter]

Submarines are a Strategic weapons system.

Expanding that strategic capability with missiles makes sense.

Except.

We'd have to have the political will to fire the missiles.

 

[Czech_pivo]

They are designed as a multi-task sub, not just a retaliation weapon. Getting the KS-III Batch 2 , would make the RCN a force to be reckoned with. It would mean any opponent needs to spend a lot of resource to keep those subs away from it's assets. Once we have a bunch of RCD, KS-III and our JSS in the water, the RCN will be able to punch at a weight it hasn't seen likley since the Korean war.

Please let this happen.

 

[Kirkhill]

Why would Canada want to buy a missile boat like the KSS III? What would the RCN do with subs designed primarily for the strategic retaliation mission?

Considering that we were looking at Tomahawks and still maybe are. They were as I recall tactical weapons with if I'm not mistaken a longer range then the Korean SMRBM s .
The only difference between them and the cruise missile is speed and size of warheads.
It actually might be quite handy to be able to drop several thousand pounds of explosives on target from some distance away.

They are designed as a multi-task sub, not just a retaliation weapon. Getting the KS-III Batch 2 , would make the RCN a force to be reckoned with. It would mean any opponent needs to spend a lot of resource to keep those subs away from it's assets. Once we have a bunch of RCD, KS-III and our JSS in the water, the RCN will be able to punch at a weight it hasn't seen likley since the Korean war.

And the tactical environment is changing a lot. Ranges are increasing. The Maritime Strike Tomahawk is designed to take out ships. It is a long range torpedo that flies through the air. The Tomahawk can be launched through any suitably prepared 21" torpedo tube on any submarine. The KSS vertical launch capability is simply the equivalent of adding more torpedo tubes. It also gives the KSS the flexibility the VLS Mk41 will give the RCN's new destroyers. Those tubes could be used to supply NORAD with more SM6s as well. The SM6 can take out aircraft, missiles, ships and land targets.

What is the Maritime Strike Tomahawk cruise missile?

The Maritime Strike Tomahawk is designed to provide a naval anti-surface warfare capability to the long-serving land-attack cruise missile.

www.naval-technology.com

Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) | Missile Threat

The Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) is a multi-mission missile capable of antiair warfare, terminal ballistic missile defense, and antiship strike roles. It uses a blast-fragmentation warhead to engage these threats in the endo-atmosphere. The U.S. Navy has also upgraded the SM-6 to perform strike...

missilethreat.csis.org

 

[Colin Parkinson]

KSS_III Bath 2 weapon systems. It's likley if several nations buy the sub and ask, they make a AD missile package as well.

6 x 533mm ATP torpedo tubes Babcock International WHLS (K761 Tiger Shark, C-Star-III), Submarine Launched Mobile Mine (SLMM), 10 x VLS (Hyunmoo-IV-4)

South Korea’s Tiger Shark Torpedo to reach FOC by year-end - Naval News

According to South Korea's DAPA, the Tiger Shark torpedo produced by LIG Nex1 for the ROK Navy will become fully operational by the end of this year.

www.navalnews.com

Hyunmoo IV / KSR Mid-Range Ballistic Missile

www.globalsecurity.org

 

[Underway]

Why would Canada want to buy a missile boat like the KSS III? What would the RCN do with subs designed primarily for the strategic retaliation mission?

Payloads not platforms.

A KSSIII is a platform. A stealthy platform. That can launch missiles vertically. The payload (aka the type of missiles) in those launchers changes the mission. It can also do all the other normal submarine stuff (kill other subs for example).

If those ballistic missiles were replaced with all anti ship cruise missiles the mission set changes significantly.

Also land attack capability is in the RFI. Because that's a mission we want to have in our back pocket.

 

[Rainbow1910]

Payloads not platforms.

A KSSIII is a platform. A stealthy platform. That can launch missiles vertically. The payload (aka the type of missiles) in those launchers changes the mission. It can also do all the other normal submarine stuff (kill other subs for example).

If those ballistic missiles were replaced with all anti ship cruise missiles the mission set changes significantly.

Also land attack capability is in the RFI. Because that's a mission we want to have in our back pocket.

It's a relatively unique selling point as well because as far as I am aware besides the special order Israeli submarines from Germany, none of the prospective bidders actually have a proven submarine VLS at sea or even under construction besides Korea. It is potentially a real game changer to not bottle neck your land attack/naval strike munitions into the torpedo magazine and the attached launch tubes.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Plus the Tigershark Torpedo has an extra 20km range over the Mk48

If we got these subs, a lot of people who don't like us would be very unhappy

This is the range of the weapon systems of one KSS-III 800/55km

 

[Kirkhill]

Plus the Tigershark Torpedo has an extra 20km range over the Mk48

If we got these subs, a lot of people who don't like us would be very unhappy

This is the range of the weapon systems of one KSS-III 800/55km

View attachment 94203

In the Canadian context, a pair of KSS IIIs armed with 1600 km Maritime Strike Tomahawks, one in the Labrador Sea and the other 1500 km off Vancouver Island. A lot of uncertainty there for the other side's planners.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Not sure if the VLS are configured for US munitions, so far only their own weapons. But we could have them built with US designed VLS, but that also massively increases the amount of ITAR goods in the subs. At present I am not sure if they have any ITAR items aboard?