Replacing the Subs

[Eaglelord17]

at this point, South Korea, and Hanwha have put so much carrots into investing into Canada, to the potential tune of creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, and billions of dollars to our GDP. I don't foresee how its possible that their bid doesn't win when the RFP closes at the end of the month

I hope SK wins. They have so much to potentially offer which Europe will charge more for in a longer time frame. We need equipment today (thanks to our complete lack of seriousness as nation and allowing ourselves to become more or less defenceless) not some imaginary date a decade away.

The industrial benefits are also much more substantial due to how SK industry functions.

 

[Underway]

I have no vote in the matter but I'm team (S)SK at this point. I think that there is much more future growth potential in the SK bid and the timelines are better. Bit inwill not complain of a GerNor submarine. It's an excellent choice and may lead to future naval cooperation on other platforms as well.

 

[Lumber]

One big concern I have, which I'm curious whether is even being considered at high levels (though I doubt it would be made public) is that in an all out war between China and the US, I feel it's likely China would include SK in their target list due to their Western leaning and the fact that there are so many US assets there that can't be ignored, and in such a scenario, their entire ship building capacity could be literally leveled in the opening salvo with long range LACMs fired from mainland China.

 

[Czech_pivo]

One big concern I have, which I'm curious whether is even being considered at high levels (though I doubt it would be made public) is that in an all out war between China and the US, I feel it's likely China would include SK in their target list due to their Western leaning and the fact that there are so many US assets there that can't be ignored, and in such a scenario, their entire ship building capacity could be literally leveled in the opening salvo with long range LACMs fired from mainland China.

Yes, sounds logical. Hence the reason why they may want to build in some redundancy into their system and offshoring some of this in Canada might be prudent.
A comprehensive maintenance/repair facility in BC would allow them to move their remaining subs to BC for repair/refit/resupply.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I agree with Czech_pivo here. From the start, I saw the actions of SK as an attempt to offset some of the risks to their facilities from China.

Think about it this way: If war with China breaks out, what side is Canada going to be on? And then, would Canada object to SK transferring to Canada a large number of their specialized shipbuilding manpower to expand their shipyard in Canada and build for both countries?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Yes, sounds logical. Hence the reason why they may want to build in some redundancy into their system and offshoring some of this in Canada might be prudent.
A comprehensive maintenance/repair facility in BC would allow them to move their remaining subs to BC for repair/refit/resupply.

Tying into this would be their dangling in front of us a production facility for torpedoes in Canada as it would allow them to continue to stay in the fight.

 

[Kirkhill]

How fast can the Koreans add new halls in Vancouver and Halifax and ramp up production?

It is what they did for Seaspan and what they are doing for the States.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

In war time, things can go up pretty fast.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I agree with Czech_pivo here. From the start, I saw the actions of SK as an attempt to offset some of the risks to their facilities from China.

Think about it this way: If war with China breaks out, what side is Canada going to be on? And then, would Canada object to SK transferring to Canada a large number of their specialized shipbuilding manpower to expand their shipyard in Canada and build for both countries?

Would we have a legal obligation to defend SK under the existing UN mandate around the Armistice between NK/China/SK if China attacked?

 

[Underway]

One big concern I have, which I'm curious whether is even being considered at high levels (though I doubt it would be made public) is that in an all out war between China and the US, I feel it's likely China would include SK in their target list due to their Western leaning and the fact that there are so many US assets there that can't be ignored, and in such a scenario, their entire ship building capacity could be literally leveled in the opening salvo with long range LACMs fired from mainland China.

Same could almost be argued for Europe facing Russia. But instead of Russia hitting shipyards it would be Germany redirecting resources to deal with a land war (or taking our delivery for themselves and Norway).

Either way I think there is risk, and war blows out all previous planning.

 

[MilEME09]

How fast can the Koreans add new halls in Vancouver and Halifax and ramp up production?

It is what they did for Seaspan and what they are doing for the States.

The submarine facilities they are planning will be able to do everything except manufacture a new sub. I bet if they wanted to though, it wouldn't take much to go from full overhaul facilities to new build capabilities if needed.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Would we have a legal obligation to defend SK under the existing UN mandate around the Armistice between NK/China/SK if China attacked?

AI response to your question:

Canada does not have a clear-cut, binding legal obligation to militarily defend South Korea (ROK) under the existing 1953 Korean Armistice Agreement, even though it remains an active participant in the United Nations Command (UNC) that supervises the armistice.
While the 1953 Armistice was meant to be temporary and the war technically never officially ended, the obligation to intervene if China or North Korea attacked is more political and moral than a strict legal treaty obligation (unlike Article 5 of NATO).
Here is a breakdown of the legal and security realities:

1. The UN Command and Armistice Context

• Active Role: Canada is a signatory to the 1953 Korean Armistice Agreement and has maintained an active presence in the UNC Military Armistice Commission (UNCMAC) for over 70 years.
• Current Contribution: Canada currently contributes military personnel to the UNC and conducts "Operation NEON," which monitors sanctions evasion against North Korea.
• UNC Mandate: The UNC was established by UN Security Council Resolution 84 (1950) to repel armed attacks and restore peace. However, the 1953 Armistice primarily acts as a ceasefire, not a mutual defense treaty.

2. Legal Obligation vs. Political Commitment
No Binding Treaty: Legal experts and defense officials have stated that there is no explicit treaty clause compelling Canada to join a new war if the Korean ceasefire collapses.
Political Obligation: Canada's involvement in the Korean War was based on UN resolutions, and the country has maintained a strong, enduring commitment to peace in the region.
Contingency Planning: Despite the lack of a "binding" legal pact, the Canadian Armed Forces have historically done "prudent planning" for crises in the region, and Canada has signaled that it would likely support South Korea as an ally.
3. Key Factors in a Potential Conflict
The US Factor: The UNC is led by the United States. If China attacked South Korea, the US would almost certainly be involved, which would heavily influence Canada’s decision to support its primary ally.
The 2022/2024 Partnerships: Canada and South Korea launched a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership in 2022 and further reinforced it in 2024, expanding cooperation in security and defense. This strengthens the expectation of support.
Canada's Position: Canada views the Korean Peninsula as a key defense priority and a critical area for protecting the "rules-based international order".
In summary, if China attacked South Korea, Canada would not be legally forced by a treaty to fight, but it would likely be under intense political and allied pressure to participate, supported by its continued, long-term participation in the UN Command.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Same could almost be argued for Europe facing Russia. But instead of Russia hitting shipyards it would be Germany redirecting resources to deal with a land war (or taking our delivery for themselves and Norway).

Either way I think there is risk, and war blows out all previous planning.

I hate to even think it. But I suspect the Chinese might decide to err on the side of their own security and basically level any military target on the West Coast.
For which I fairly sure they'll be quite apologetic.
It might also be done as a warning for us to remain neutral.