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".
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.
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.
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.
According to this, the submarine-launched Tomahawk is no longer produced, but work is underway on a sub-launched version of the NSM.
www.navalnews.com
I would point out that neither of these subs (KSS-III batch 2, or Type 212 CD) is actually in the water, "diving". The first Batch 2 isn't due for delivery until next year, and the first CD not until 2029. If we stuck to that restriction, the only subs of the original 5 options that are actually in the water would be the Spanish S-80 (barely) and Japanese Taigei Class. Had the Japanese government not decided to pull out, I still think those subs would have been strong contenders.
Not sure about the AIP or stealth differences but the RCN will have to evaluate this classified stuff. Delivery is paramount and SKorea can deliver, even more so now that India is likely going to commit the Type 212. The VLS system that KSS-III offers is another plus.
A lack of long range strike weapons....Liberal kumbaya pollies, especially former PM junior! As for the future, who knows but having a VLS capability in the current geopolitical environment is useful if and when a decision is made to acquire long range missiles. Once the P-8s arrive, they will be another platform. I would expect most of the subs will be patrolling our coasts but Canada wants to expand Asian trade so some subs will be working with Asian navies.
www.navaltoday.com
But they have no plan to arm the personnel nor the ships. Mainly to increase the defence budget on paper to satisfy NATO promises IMHO.CCG will move from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to DND. A better fit IMHO.
Canadian Coast Guard becomes part of country's defense team
The Canadian Department of National Defence (DND) has announced the integration of the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) into the defense team.
Endurance figures are a bit useless as comparisons to each other without accompanying information to specify it. Endurance at what speed, with how many crew, on what type of power, etc. I have seen the Type 212CD listed as everything from 14 days up to 41 days, so I find any claims either way regarding the Germans and Koreans to be suspect. Ultimately it is for the RCN to decide and short listing both designs seems to indicate that both designs have more than acceptable endurance. One would suspect that the KSS-III is not that far behind in endurance, especially when it is a substantially larger vessel.
Our F-35 procurement includes $2.5B in associated weapons alongside the aircraft themselves, although it is to be seen if this includes stand off capability or anti-shipping munitions as described. Our lacklustre defence procurement and budgeting for many decades has precluded even basic capabilities, let alone excess capabilities like stand off attack munitions. Canada is interested in these sorts of long range strike capabilities due to the deterrence value and strategic options they provide to both the Military and Government at large. The RCN has been interested in the Tomahawk aboard the River class destroyers for quite sometime, there is rumored to be a purchase of HIMARS sometime soon alongside substantial munitions (GMLRS, GMLRS-ER & even PrSM) and the RFI for the Canadian Patrol Submarine Program specifically asks about the designs capability to field land attack and anti-shipping missiles.
It will be up for debate if this is a good change or not, as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans worked incredibly closely with the CCG and will be negatively affected by having their most important sister organization ripped away from them. The CCG acted as the primary transport service for DFO and their Fishery Officers, while the Fisheries Officers alongside RCMP, provided organic law enforcement capabilities that the CCG inherently lacks. DFO merged many of their own vessels into the CCG fleet when both organizations came together in the mid 1990's, so it seems questionable if the CCG will actually give DFO back their vessels, or be forced to work closely with an organization that is now under DND's mandate.CCG will move from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to DND. A better fit IMHO.
Canadian Coast Guard becomes part of country's defense team
The Canadian Department of National Defence (DND) has announced the integration of the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) into the defense team.
From what I've gathered, the Canadian Government cannot count the Canadian Coast Guard towards defence expenditure at this point due to the strict NATO guidelines as to what they consider "defence expenditure." The CCG has historically been a civilian organization and remains so, alongside being heavily unionized. Many within their ranks do not want to join the military or become militarized, so there will be substantial internal issues if that is ever forced upon them. I'd expect a very messy strike action/mass flight of personnel at the least.
It's true that endurance figures depends on many factors, like an EV battery. Both subs would be an immense improvement and I just hope they really buy 12. It's easier to find/train personnel in the future than realise down the line that 4 extra subs would have been useful.
I think the Type 212CD is likely the more advanced submarine across the board, especially involving stealth with its new angular hull structure and regarding its advanced AIP/sensor suite. With that being said, the Korean's are apparently world leaders in lithium battery technology and may have an advantage in their battery technology over the Germans, while they can also offer a worse but seemingly still competitive AIP/sensor suite. It seems much of the sensor package is either domestically sourced or squired from Europe, and is fairly top of the line itself. The Germans can say their boat is adapted to Arctic operations, although I'd be curious to what degree it actually is and how much of that translates over to the Canadian Arctic.
Indeed. Defence expenditure declared to NATO is often different from the national defence budget, e.g. Italy has been known to use money from non-defence budgets to help fund naval ships. NATO has still counted it as defence spending.
I'm very curious to see how many they will eventually order to bridge the Kingston & Halifax classes (24? One can dream) and if they will pick only one design. I was reading that Ontario Shipyards and Italy's Fincantieri are also interested to bid.