TKMS Type 212CD (Victoria class replacement megathread)

[YZT580]

I understand that argument.
Now apply that to the age of the 6 AOPS by the time the last 2 Rivers come off the production line? What will the ange of HDW be? Are we not right back where we started from in continuing to run ships past the natural lifespan?

With just the two categories one a year would provide the last River around 2040 by which time all the AOPS would be due for replacement and the first of the Rivers would be leaving its final mid-life. A little hurry-up wouldn't really hurt all that much and historically, you cannot expect to make it even to 2040 without needing them for real. IMHO

 

[Underway]

Which Canada now has the honours of receiving a number of early production boats which we need to replace our own aging submarines, with all of their quibbles and issues intact. The Germans and Norwegians get to sit back while we beta test the design, a design which isn't even operational as of the signing of this agreement. There is incredibly minimal room for error in this proposal from the Europeans, I expect multiple things to do wrong and the media to jump on this given how high profile it is/how sensitive of an issue submarines are in this country.

Call me a skeptic but I don't trust the Germans on this, they've shown their failings as much as they've shown their competency with past and ongoing procurements.

You're overstating things. Norway and Germany will still be getting the first of class submarines. Norway's current slots of 2029, 30 33, 35. Germany's are 31, 34. The Weir facility will be running at full capacity by 29 (400 staff are undergoing training right now). I find it likely that we'll get a 31, 34 build (which will be extra production lines). How this sched is rearranged I'm not sure.

29, 30, 31, 33, 34,35 is the drumbeat. Expectation is that 33 and 34 will be the first two "new addition" Canadian submarines (so 7-8 years from now). So under the new arrangement we'll have to see how they reorganize the deliveries. Could be any order at this point. I suspect Norway will get the first submarine either way.

As for TKMS failings in submarine production? The company which has successfully delivered about 40 submarines in the last 40 years is having submarine building problems? They aren't. I can't find anything that says their submarines are having QC or build issues.

They had issues with the F125 but that's a surface fleet issue. And its one project. Their MEKO is an extremely successful design which has been delivered multiple times to countries around the world (different variants). They were selected to take back building ships away from Damien which were working on the F126 project.

 

[Infanteer]

Interesting take by some:

Canada doesn't get new equipment: The government sucks and our military sucks and the stuff we have sucks.

Canada gets brand new equipment: The government sucks and our military sucks and the stuff we will get sucks.

 

[Underway]

How 'colonial' of you.

The GBA+ police should be along before 'soup' this morning

'Geronimo' Codename In Bin Laden Raid Offends Native American Groups

Native American groups are furious that the term, "Geronimo," was used during the raid against Osama bin Laden. They say linking the legendary Apache warrior with the world's most vilified terrorist is disrespectful.

www.wbur.org

Won't be tribal names. But not because of GBA+ (which is a project management process honestly and not a naming process), its more complicated then that. Has a lot to do with a lot of those names being "language groups" and not actual tribes etc...

@FSTO could explain better.

From the RCD naming committee (if they just ran it back) the top contenders would be

• inspirational class, names like Courageous, or sumsuch
• provincial class, self explanatory

The use of historical figures was highly discouraged by some committee members as your just inviting issues.

The old RCN ship naming documentation encourages submarines to be named after fish, like HMCS Grisle which was a submarine we owned. Other tradition ship naming options are:

• islands
• bays
• cities

How many Rivers concurrently will Irving have the ability to work on?

Two - Three. Depending on how you define "work on". One inside, one outside and one in the water. More if you consider "work on" to include things like design and supply management.

 

[Underway]

Interesting take by some:

Canada doesn't get new equipment: The government sucks and our military sucks and the stuff we have sucks.

Canada gets brand new equipment: The government sucks and our military sucks and the stuff we will get sucks.

I know. It's weird. I think that a lot of this is reflexive because we normally don't get nice things. So anything nice we do get people are suspicious about. Also a lot of back seat project and contract experts here (myself included), who are missing a lot of information.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Two - Three. Depending on how you define "work on". One inside, one outside and one in the water. More if you consider "work on" to include things like design and supply management.

Its good but its not where TKMS will be with 8+ boats being worked on at 2 locations.

IF TKMS is able to get Wismar at the same level of rate of production as Kiel, they will deliver to us 12 boats before we have 12 Rivers commissioned. That is something that they should be proud of, if they can of course pull it off.

If the RCN going forward is to have 40ish combat/support ships ((AOPS (6), JSS (2-4), Destroyers (15) , Light Frigates (12-20), a total ranging from 35-45 ships)), excluding the Subs, I don't see how Seaspan and Irving can continue to be the only 2 locations where combat/support ships are built.

 

[oldcpu]

How 'colonial' of you.

The GBA+ police should be along before 'soup' this morning

'Geronimo' Codename In Bin Laden Raid Offends Native American Groups

Native American groups are furious that the term, "Geronimo," was used during the raid against Osama bin Laden. They say linking the legendary Apache warrior with the world's most vilified terrorist is disrespectful.

www.wbur.org

The Royal Canadian Navy's approach for use of native Canadian names is historically rooted in a tradition of deep respect, dating back to the wartime Tribal-class destroyers and the post-war Ojibwa, Onondaga, and Okanagan submarines. In Commonwealth naval tradition, naming a class of warships after a nation or people or using native names of geography, is considered an exceptional honor meant to project their identity, strength, and legacy onto the global stage alongside the country's major cities and historical figures.

Far from being a colonial appropriation, it is intended to be an intentional recognition of Indigenous Nations as founding partners in Canada’s history, sovereignty, and ongoing national defense.

Like many things in life, I guess those with different backgrounds can view things differently.

 

[Rainbow1910]

You're overstating things. Norway and Germany will still be getting the first of class submarines. Norway's current slots of 2029, 30 33, 35. Germany's are 31, 34. The Weir facility will be running at full capacity by 29 (400 staff are undergoing training right now). I find it likely that we'll get a 31, 34 build (which will be extra production lines). How this sched is rearranged I'm not sure.

What I understood was that Canada would be getting very early production boats to actually meet our timeline, which would likely mean effectively the first boats or ones very soon after.

As for TKMS failings in submarine production? The company which has successfully delivered about 40 submarines in the last 40 years is having submarine building problems? They aren't. I can't find anything that says their submarines are having QC or build issues.

The company who magically shifted the primary issues with their bid forward at the last minute to pull out a win? I’m inherently skeptical of this sort of last minute asspull as being legitimate and not something to just grab the contract and figure out later. If the Koreans had done this, I’d be just as skeptical at the end of the day. Germans are infamous for being impossible to get spare parts and support out of, how is this going to work when we’re just another customer out of multiple? They’ve talked a big game regarding integrating our supply chains into their own, but are we going to actually hold them to account here if that starts falling apart? Canada is infamously weak regarding contract implementation and punishing parties who break said contracts.

The Germans have a good record, but I want to see tangibles before I’m satisfied with this. We have an untested design that’s juggling multiple customers at once with promises that another shipyard coming online will somehow fix all of these concerns. You can’t sail a pedigree and reputation at the end of the day.

I’m happy to eat my words if everything works out fine in the end, but I’m not so naive to be taken for a ride by a European defence contractor with promises and a shiny brochure.

From the RCD naming committee (if they just ran it back) the top contenders would be

• inspirational class, names like Courageous, or sumsuch

Hopefully we don’t just ape naming schemes from the Royal Navy and can use something more relevant or interesting.

The old RCN ship naming documentation encourages submarines to be named after fish, like HMCS Grisle which was a submarine we owned. Other tradition ship naming options are:

• islands
• bays
• cities

I wouldn’t be surprised if we default again to something as lame and uninspired as cities once again, as effectively the entire RCN was named after not so recently. Sea creatures would be much more interesting, although as many in the US state, “fish don’t vote.”

The Royal Canadian Navy's approach for use of native Canadian names is historically rooted in a tradition of deep respect, dating back to the wartime Tribal-class destroyers and the post-war Ojibwa, Onondaga, and Okanagan submarines. In Commonwealth naval tradition, naming a class of warships after a nation or people or using native names of geography, is considered an exceptional honor meant to project their identity, strength, and legacy onto the global stage alongside the country's major cities and historical figures.

Far from being a colonial appropriation, it is intended to be an intentional recognition of Indigenous Nations as founding partners in Canada’s history, sovereignty, and ongoing national defense.

Like many things in life, I guess those with different backgrounds can view things differently.

From what snippets we’ve had shared elsewhere on the forum, the “Tribal” naming scheme fell apart or otherwise was not chosen for the River class specifically due to to indigenous politics and politics more broadly. For every person who sees having a nation named after themselves as being an honour, others view it as a colonial establishment co-opting them for purposes they do not support. How do you pick what indigenous nations or groups get/deserve recognition over another? Some “nations” aren’t actual nations as we understand it but more of a loose language group. This gets very sticky when you realize there is significant animosity between some groups themselves and not all nations themselves even agree on these sorts of things. What is the actual name you use to attach to a nation? The name within their language with their own text, or an anglicized version?

The juice wasn’t worth the squeeze and they defaulted to an easy and non confrontational River class designation.

provincial class, self explanatory

Now you get to decide which province gets cut from the roster lol.

 

[oldcpu]

As for TKMS failings in submarine production? The company which has successfully delivered about 40 submarines in the last 40 years is having submarine building problems? They aren't. I can't find anything that says their submarines are having QC or build issues.

While i had a preference for the KSS-III batch II, I also think the TKMS Type-212CD has the earmarks of a great submarine. I do believe that.

I am encouraged by this not being a TKMS export submarine, but rather this being the same submarine being delivered to Norway and Germany.

Why do I say that?

While ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) is globally recognized as a premier designer and builder of conventional submarines, the initial deployment of the Type-214 export class highlighted that even top-tier shipbuilders, such as TKMS, can face complex first-in-class MAJOR teething issues.

During sea trials in the mid-2000s, Greece's lead boat, HS Papanikolis, suffered from severe surface stability flaws—including excessive rolling in rough seas — alongside premature propeller cavitation, periscope vibrations, and overheating within the polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) hydrogen fuel cells of the Air-Independent Propulsion (AIP) system. TKMS eventually resolved the hydrodynamic balance issues by installing a 21-ton structural modification to adjust the vessel's center of gravity. This caused major contractual issues - needless to say.

South Korea’s domestic build of the class (the KSS-II or Son Won-il class) also encountered distinct, systemic propulsion defects rather than hull-form instability. The fleet was severely impacted by manufacturing defects in the Siemens-supplied inverter modules, where a breakdown of cable insulation coatings led to degradation, rust, and catastrophic cooling fluid leaks that flooded the electronics on boats like the ROKS Jeong Ji.

Because these highly proprietary components could not be repaired locally due to strict technology-transfer limits, the modules had to be uninstalled and shipped back to Germany, creating lengthy operational bottlenecks before the fleet achieved full maturity.

I note those were relatively early TKMS Type-214 deliveries, and also note the TKMS Type-214 was an export submarine, not intended for the German Navy.