Replacing the Subs

[Nvlgzr]

You don't think Korea, Japan, and Australia would "keep an eye" on the Pacific for the Americans while they're occupied? You don't think that if a Canadian sub showed up that those three wouldn't say "uhh... no thanks, we know these waters a LOT better than you."

Was there not talk a few years back about forward locating to Guam?

 

[Genetk44]

No but really, go on google maps and actually LOOK at the Korean yards. You'll see one company's yards which has 4 massive ships being built in a single dry dock and think "holy shit!", and THEN go and realized that some of these companies have multiple sets of these dry docks, and there a several companies in Korea with the same level of capacity. It's insane.

The first Type 212 CD had its keel laid in 2023, is approx 80% complete and on schedule for a 2029 delivery

It is 80% complete but only scheduled for a 2029 delivery??? 3 more years to complete the remaining 20% and have her fit for service….seems absurdly long

 

[KevinB]

It is 80% complete but only scheduled for a 2029 delivery??? 3 more years to complete the remaining 20% and have her fit for service….seems absurdly long

New type of boat, so there will be manufacturers trials before the turn over.

 

[Genetk44]

New type of boat, so there will be manufacturers trials before the turn over.

Ok I understand….but still another 3 years? Seems a slow timeline.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Was there not talk a few years back about forward locating to Guam?

For the first year of each sub delivered, base it out of Korea, that way the sub can have warranty issues fixed there and rotate crews over on perhaps a two month rotation?

 

[Furniture]

You don't think Korea, Japan, and Australia would "keep an eye" on the Pacific for the Americans while they're occupied? You don't think that if a Canadian sub showed up that those three wouldn't say "uhh... no thanks, we know these waters a LOT better than you."

I don't think they'd be so dumb.

They'd likely say "Thanks for lending a hand, because with America pre-occupied in Europe, China is more likely to need extra watching."

 

[Retired AF Guy]

The first Type 212 CD had its keel laid in 2023, is approx 80% complete and on schedule for a 2029 delivery

Thank you. Should have checked that!

 

[Kirkhill]

It seems to me that the VLS system means more stand-off capability meaning more sea area covered by fire. Surface targets can be engaged by ballistic and cruise missiles over hundreds of kilometers. Submarines can be engaged with ASROC type solutions.

Even long range torpedoes seem to require closing to ranges of less than 100 km. That makes the ASW search area for the enemy kind of small.

 

[PHughes]

TKMS has purchased a 2nd yard and made significant $$investments to expand their production capacity. They currently can build 2 boats per year and will expand that to 4+ boats to deal with their current backlog of 20+ boats

Busy place. They have hinted getting the CPSP deal will allow them to expand to 6-7 boats per year .

TBD

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It seems to me that the VLS system means more stand-off capability meaning more sea area covered by fire. Surface targets can be engaged by ballistic and cruise missiles over hundreds of kilometers. Submarines can be engaged with ASROC type solutions.

Even long range torpedoes seem to require closing to ranges of less than 100 km. That makes the ASW search area for the enemy kind of small.

If we buy the KS-III, it's likely that they get another order as well, which would drive more options for the VLS to use.

 

[Czech_pivo]

TKMS has purchased a 2nd yard and made significant $$investments to expand their production capacity. They currently can build 2 boats per year and will expand that to 4+ boats to deal with their current backlog of 20+ boats

Busy place. They have hinted getting the CPSP deal will allow them to expand to 6-7 boats per year .

TBD

That may very well be true. But a new facility doesn't automatically translate into 2-4,000 new, qualified, experienced shipbuilders.

The easy part is the building of a new facility, finding of the individuals to fill the roles is the much harder part. Irving searched the world over for its new employees when they ramped up AOPS production. They were trying to get ship builders from Ireland, the UK, Poland, Romania and many many other places. Hamburg, where the TKMS site is located, is not really an appealing place to pick up and move your family to - overpopulated, expensive, dirty, not the best weather, doesn't really rank as a great place to live.

 

[PHughes]

If we buy the KS-III, it's likely that they get another order as well, which would drive more options for the VLS to use.

Anyone know if the CSPS documentation has a stated requirement for an IRBM capability?

 

[KevinB]

TKMS has purchased a 2nd yard and made significant $$investments to expand their production capacity. They currently can build 2 boats per year and will expand that to 4+ boats to deal with their current backlog of 20+ boats

Busy place. They have hinted getting the CPSP deal will allow them to expand to 6-7 boats per year .

TBD

I get a kick out of German marketing.

In addition to what @Czech_pivo pointed out on the personnel.
Building something in facility A doesn’t necessarily mean the facility B will do the same easily at the start.

Secondly having doubled ones production size doesn’t make production being doubled - simply as long lead time items can be a limiting factor.

I don’t for the life of me believe that the Germans can meet Canada’s desires timeline even if they don’t get Poland’s order.

 

[PHughes]

Very well could be but they may not get involved in a shooting war and the US may ‘ask’ us to give them a hand.

Realistically, the western Pacific is to Canada what the north Atlantic is to Australia or Japan or Korea. For the RCN, the CSPS is primarily about the GIUK and the Arctic archipelago choke points. The CSPS is NATO centric and ASW focused. The RCN wants Hunter Killer boats with the highest survivability . . . aka stealth . . . ratings possible. The RCN knows the two greatest threats to boats are enemy Hunter Killers and ASW aircraft. The 212CD has the best stealth available to defeat the enemy subs and is the only boat that has an anti ASW aircraft weapon, a Canadian made weapon.

The guesswork and opinions about delivery schedules is fun but the critical path is far more likely to be the RCN’s ability to train the required crews.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Realistically, the western Pacific is to Canada what the north Atlantic is to Australia or Japan or Korea. For the RCN, the CSPS is primarily about the GIUK and the Arctic archipelago choke points. The CSPS is NATO centric and ASW focused. The RCN wants Hunter Killer boats with the highest survivability . . . aka stealth . . . ratings possible. The RCN knows the two greatest threats to boats are enemy Hunter Killers and ASW aircraft. The 212CD has the best stealth available to defeat the enemy subs and is the only boat that has an anti ASW aircraft weapon, a Canadian made weapon.

The guesswork and opinions about delivery schedules is fun but the critical path is far more likely to be the RCN’s ability to train the required crews.

I am trying to make the point of; place all the NATO navies' assets in the Atlantic/Med/Baltic on the 'left' side of a table and then place all of Russian navy's assets on the 'right' side of the table and then ask the question - Does Canada really need to focus greater than or less than 50% of these potential 12 new subs on the East Coast or the West Coast? From my back of the napkin guessing, 50% on the East Coast and the other 50% on the West Coast - which will mean that the we'll have assets available to help check/monitor/sink the Russian assets in the Pacific.

Both the Baltic and the Med will be NATO bathtubs, especially if the Turks close the straits of Dardanelles. That will leave the Brits/French/Belgians/Dutch/Danes/Norwegians/Spanish/Portuguese/Americans and Us to deal with whatever the Russians push out from Murmansk.

 

[Kirkhill]

I am trying to make the point of; place all the NATO navies' assets in the Atlantic/Med/Baltic on the 'left' side of a table and then place all of Russian navy's assets on the 'right' side of the table and then ask the question - Does Canada really need to focus greater than or less than 50% of these potential 12 new subs on the East Coast or the West Coast? From my back of the napkin guessing, 50% on the East Coast and the other 50% on the West Coast - which will mean that the we'll have assets available to help check/monitor/sink the Russian assets in the Pacific.

Both the Baltic and the Med will be NATO bathtubs, especially if the Turks close the straits of Dardanelles. That will leave the Brits/French/Belgians/Dutch/Danes/Norwegians/Spanish/Portuguese/Americans and Us to deal with whatever the Russians push out from Murmansk.

I would argue that the East Coast begins at Grand Manan and ends at Tuktoyuktuk.

The West Coast begins in the Straits of Juan de Fuca and ends in Dixon Entrance.

If we are talking about a Coastal Force then it is 9 subs in Halifax and 3 in Esquimalt.

6 and 6 if we are entering the Pacific conflict seriously and helping to barricade the Aleutians.

...

It looks like the Brits, Danes, Norwegians and Icelanders (they are looking at active participation) will be able to manage the GIUK gap if we manage our NAFO fishing zone and our Arctic Archipelago.