TKMS Type 212CD (Victoria class replacement megathread)

[Colin Parkinson]

Good point on the stealth/pressure hull.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

A video discussing the 212CD and some of it's history and figures. I note they are about 4m longer than the Vic's and beam of 2.8m wider, but with roughly the same submerged tonnage.

So a submarine with a completely new design that is still under construction, using very expensive non-magnetic steel for its hull, a completely new CMS, and new weapon systems (IDAS and Tyrfing).

A lot of question marks if you ask me. **

** Full disclosure I was a Hanwha fan and a land-lubber with no submarine experience. So just my grousing.

 

[FJAG]

I favoured the Hanwha as well (as did most folks in this forum judging by the poll). It was mostly because of the schedule and the VLS . . . but they're both good and each has its good points - my thoughts too come from a landlubbers point of view. I totally got the political issue on this and the tie to Europe. We're earning a lot of brownie points at last. Maybe Canada will see a seat on the Security Council again (for whatever that's worth). It's good to have other friends when your best buddy goes weird.

 

[Underway]

So a submarine with a completely new design that is still under construction, using very expensive non-magnetic steel for its hull, a completely new CMS, and new weapon systems (IDAS and Tyrfing).

A lot of question marks if you ask me. **

** Full disclosure I was a Hanwha fan and a land-lubber with no submarine experience. So just my grousing.

IDAS isn't operational yet, they keep talking it up but I don't think anyone has fielded it. Tyrfing is in the same boat... haha. Those aren't questions they are just glossy brochure stuff that Canada doesn't care about at this time.

The one thing that is in development that we do care about is the Anti Torp Torp. That has surface fleet implications as well.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

IDAS isn't operational yet, they keep talking it up but I don't think anyone has fielded it. Tyrfing is in the same boat... haha. Those aren't questions they are just glossy brochure stuff that Canada doesn't care about at this time.

The one thing that is in development that we do care about is the Anti Torp Torp. That has surface fleet implications as well.

Oh, hell yes on the anti-torpedo torpedo…

 

[daftandbarmy]

Oh, hell yes on the anti-torpedo torpedo…

 

[SeaKingTacco]

It is a thing.

A beautiful, beautiful thing.

 

[Underway]

Yah the name is stupid. ATT for short. But if they get it to target correctly... its going to completely revolutionize torpedo defence. Canada has been on the ground floor of this system for years. Magelean makes the rocket motors for the ATT (yes they are rocket propelled) and Atlas Electronik Canada is one of the developers of the system.

 

[KevinB]

Guess on how long it takes for ATAT?
Anti Torpedo Anti Torpedo

 

[daftandbarmy]

Guess on how long it takes for ATAT?
Anti Torpedo Anti Torpedo

Which reminds me of a local restaurant ...

 

[Furniture]

I cannot imagine how little fuel you had left getting across the pond. I recall that I overhead the UDER discussing with the CERA in CSE Flats about cutting the DFO with some JP-5 to help eke us out a bit further, but they opted not to.

When I was on REG that discussion was had. Not because of speed, but because the Pacific is so big, and the weather hadn't played nice.

Which reminds me of a local restaurant ...

View attachment 101373

Best poutine I've had in BC was from there.

 

[daftandbarmy]

No I am not fundamentally doing such. I guess I will have to explain such as you 100% missed such.

If you go back and read the hypothetical proposed names you will see it is very different.

The RCN has a history of using native names for warships which in the most part correspond to rivers. Look at the "steamers" , ... ie the St.Laurent, MacKenzie, Restigouche, and Annapolis class. All named after rivers. And if one looks at the origin of the river names, 10 were of Indigenous origin, 3 named after explorers, 6 mostly french language origin, and 1 likely named related to British royalty. Clearly , "Indigenous" is the largest origin.

Further, which you noted that you did see on the website, the RCN on a government webpage clearly indicates for the River Class it intends to use Indigenous names - which is 100% contrary to your devil's advocate position that such use of Indigenous names will be offensive because not every aspect of Canada's Indigenous culture can be covered.

Noting that the past 'steamers' in no small part had names that in the majority were from river's of Indigenous names, and further noting that the RCN intends to follow that tradition with the River Class, and noting further that the 3 Canadian O-boats, in addition to adopting a name starting with "O" also adopted names of Indigenous origin, establishes a strong tradition of showing exceptional honor to Canada's native culture.

The fact that every group can't have use of their names/language is, frankly, an over concern (dare i say over-reach) in your devil's advocate approach.

Further - My point ??? It is this ... The names I suggested prior were deliberately new names, in part, to use Indigenous names that had not yet been used, in part to address the VERY devil advocate approaches such as yours (where I think you over looked that part of my intent).

Now ... on the topic of names - I also like the names of Canada's provinces/territories being used for the Type-212CD class submarines to be procured by Canada. I note thou, some of those provinces have Indigenous origins, and frankly we should celebrate such origins, and not try to ignore it (or put it down) as an English language adaptation, like you inferred. Nor should we put it down because every Indigenous aspect can not be covered (unless of course, you wish to buy 2 or 3 dozen more submarines to satisfy all).

I also note that naming submarines after past distinguished surface warships is also something other navies in the world have been known to do.

Having typed that, if one wished to play the devil's advocate for naming Canadian Type-212CDs after provinces, one could gripe and say that is a "USA approach" as the USN for their Virginia class submarines have mostly (not entirely thou) named such after US states. Hence in a time and age when the USA POTUS is applying tariffs and making veiled acquisition of Canada suggestions, adopting a USA approach may (if playing the devils advocate) not be an appropriate approach (naming our subs after provinces like USA does , where USA names subs after states). .... Just saying if i were a devil's advocate.

One area where I think we agree (although I could be wrong there in your view) is we both believe that chosen names should ideally reflect some aspect of Canadian history / heritage that we wish to honour by naming a submarine after such.

Easy solution:

Find someone in the Armoured Corps to name them for you and then paint it in big letters on the side: 11, 11A, 11B, 11C...

... you're welcome

 

[Underway]

Guess on how long it takes for ATAT?
Anti Torpedo Anti Torpedo

ATTT anti torp torp torp? But as funny as it is, there isn't an Air Defence Missile Defence Missile for aircraft is there.

 

[Underway]

https://defense-update.com/20221019_sea-spider.html

There's a decent article on the system. Basically as torps get more sophisticated in their tracking and targeting decoys and evasion manouvers get less effective. So hard kill is likely more important.

The main problem is detection of a torp and then targeting of a torp. Underwater warfare is actually "relatively faster" than above water warfare. Because the sensor information isn't real time (whereas a radar information is real time). As such the info on where an underwater contact is could be out of date, particularly with a fast moving torp. So getting a targeting/track on a torp is pretty hard.

If you can at least get a bearing and depth then an ATT can be shot down that bearing and find the target itself.