Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

[John Fedup]

It's pretty widely accepted that speed of delivery is one of the top selection criteria. The Vics, though recently upgraded, will start aging out in 2035. The RCN has a stated requirement that a new boat must be in the water and at least at initial operating capability by 2035. Hanwha has stated they can deliver 4 by that date (the first in 2029), whereas TKMS is only committing to one. In this respect, Hanwha has a clear advantage.

With regards to which is better, either one will be a vast improvement over the current fleet of boats. Between the Type 212 CD and the KSS-III, I favour the KSS-III because it has more volume for "stuff". However, there is some speculation on a Canadian defence forum that the boat TKMS has proposed is the Type 212 CD E (expeditionary), which would be roughly equivalent to the KSS-III in size. This was offered to the Dutch (and lost out to the NG proposal), but was at a very advanced level of design, so certainly a possibility. From what I can gather, it's essentially a 212 CD with a hull stretch, sharing all the same systems as the 212 CD, but with a substantially improved range and endurance.

https://www.thyssenkrupp-marinesystems.nl/en/the-new-submarines.html

The Type 212 CD (E)...advanced state of design...probably like NG's SSK derivative of their SSN....didn't exactly work out for Australia. Our Cyclone acquisition should have been, if it isn't flying, do not buy it. Same for subs, if it isn't diving, do not buy it. As you mentioned, delivery is paramount. Forget the "E".

 

[John Fedup]

I suspect this decision will be driven by two factors: How quickly the first boat can be delivered, and strategic considerations related to trade and offsets. As Canada has signed on the the ReArm Europe initiative, purchasing a European boat might buy us considerable good will, and lead to reciprocal purchases of Canadian goods.

Delivery should trump trade offsets which is why I favour Hanwha. We have huge army requirements which both SKorea and Germany can accommodate. The loser should e have an advantage for the army kit. Global Eye should be our choice over the E-7, so some more Euro kit.

 

[CorvetteCrunch]

TKMS (but they could also outsource some work to their ally Fincantieri and/or to local companies, if the canadian gov agrees) can build SSKs with VLS.
The point is: does the RCN have a need for such systems? Are they ready to choose a VLS design and a missile?
Those kind of weapon systems are not cheap, even when we are talking about submarines (very expensive themselves) so Canada should really think carefully if they want to go with vertical launch or the more classical path of turpedo-tubes launched missiles.

The israeli INS-Drakon was built in Europe by TKMS and is believed to have a VLS in the sail.

There is a distinct difference between some limited sail based VLS and what the South Koreans are offering, which is a set of 10 hull mounted and large diameter VLS cells. It seems very unlikely TKMS will outsource work, as this has never been stated and Fincantieri is busy building submarines for the Italian Navy. The RFI released for this program specifically mentioned anti-ship and land attack missiles, alongside the sourcing of Tomahawk missiles for the River class, it seems the RCN is very interested in this capability. VLS allows you to offload missiles out of the torpedo magazine, leaving additional slots open there for the aforementioned systems alongside whatever other unmanned systems come in the future. These launchers are already integrated into the base design being offered to Canada, so removing them would likely be a hassle and fly against the MOTS mindset of the program.

I'm urprised NG wasn't downselected.

Maybe I'm seeing this with an Australian lense but with those three patrol oceans your politicians keep referencing, any boat selected ideally would need to be big enough to sustain prolonged operations involving long transits across each domain?

Is it the case that the TKMS Type 212CD or the Hanwha KS-III are the best available options from a series of bad to average options?

I'm not having a go at either design, but both likely excel in the Baltic or Sea of Japan, drifting at a few knots for extended peiods both close to their respective home port as well as their AOR. That clearly affects the type of submarine you would design and you can get away with a much smaller AND cheaper boat.

I'm not saying NG Barracuda is better than both designs, but the larger sized sub does help on many levels.

I assume NG after taking the Dutch order don't have the yard or industrial capacity to commit to the requested timeframes? From what I've heard one of the major fears was losing crew, knowledge and capability if RCN has a multi-year gap of no submarines, so the timeframes are a big issue (see RAN et al) forcing their hand at what is available in a relatively short timeframe.

There is of course the issue of operating submerged under sea ice for a prolonged period which usually is speciality of an SSN, but let's not go there shall we. Operating from Victoria then heading north past the Barents into the northern iced approaches sounds like a bloody long and difficult patrol, at slow speeds and not long on station when you finally get there. Doing it in a sub designed for small transit doesn't seem logical to me, albeit I of course may be wrong (from a person so far and not used to the region, nor only can access open source etc), but it may be the case like we've had over here, that if you had your time all over again you clearly would have acted sooner and more decisively to ensure the right capability is build/ deployed rather than this spilt milk merry-go-round we endure frustrated because ultimately 'we get what we get and we don't get upset' ...

Again just my 2 cents from far far away land.

Assume Hanwha would be the early favourite, but only just.

It very much seems that NG has their hands full with their current order book, between domestic and foreign buys at the moment. Taking on an order of 12 submarines on such an aggressive timeline is difficult, and perhaps the French have learned their lesson from Australia about biting off more than they can chew. Both designs have survived the down selecting process and are the obvious picks, they seem to meet all requirements and either would be a very capable option for Canada. The Koreans have a much faster delivery schedule and a yard that isn't totally crammed with other orders, so I am leaning towards them at this point.

 

[John Fedup]

@CorvetteCrunch Agree SK is the likely winner albeit Japan thought they going to beat NG with OZ's first go around. WRT to Tomahawk, are torpedo launched versions still available for subs?

 

[Sender]

@CorvetteCrunch Agree SK is the likely winner albeit Japan thought they going to beat NG with OZ's first go around. WRT to Tomahawk, are torpedo launched versions still available for subs?

According to this, the submarine-launched Tomahawk is no longer produced, but work is underway on a sub-launched version of the NSM.

Maritime Strike: Joint Strike Missile as armament for Type 212CD submarines? - Naval News

As part of its recently published strategic direction, "Kurs Marine," the German Navy is considering Joint Strike Missile – Submarine Launched

www.navalnews.com