This is why I put Korea in the lead. Their domestic build out history for other defence contracts elsewhere (Poland and Australia as good examples) and the fact Canada has a free trade agreement with them gives them a powerful bid.
Probably. German naming generally annoys me. But also I haven't been watching the German developments that closely. Even with two engines, long range transits are going to be painful. I don't know of any customer that regularly uses them for long range blue water patrols. That isn't to say its not capable of that, but many western countries worry about risk with these type of military projects, so having an operating regularly using them in a simular way is going to be attractive for selection.
www.navalnews.com
This is what happened with the Collins project, a simple lengthening may be low risk for a surface ship but for submarine its very involved. I think it would work better with the 212CD, projects are more modern, there is a bigger ecosystem for the Germans, but many of the same issues exist. Particularly taking a coastal sub to a blue water sub, its not just fuel and accommodation, many systems need to evolve. Which is where the 216 also ran into problems, although Australia's wants and needs are very high.
I think this is possible too. Australia sailed a sub from the UK to Australia over 100 years ago. Modern conventional can offer long range, and low discretion, but perhaps not at the same time. But in Canada's case that may not be required. Some sub capability is better than no sub capability.
Depending on the number of subs maybe a part international part local build is possible?
news.usni.org
Canada's current submarines only have two diesel engines and for all of their issues, they have proven capable of deployments across the Atlantic and Pacific. The Portuguese NRP Arpão (Type 214) has deployed abroad to Africa, South America and even India alongside a recent 70 day deployment where 4 days were spent north of Nuuk, Greenland under the ice there. Obviously there was some port calls throughout these periods but I don't think only having two diesel engines is going to be a disqualifier here. More engines might help but the reliability of those engines and the ability to meet the requirements are going to be key.
As Underway mentioned above, domestic construction is going to be effectively impossible for Canada. We have never undertaken submarine construction and thus, the industrial base is nowhere near established. We've had issues with our contractors domestically being able to competently upkeep and refit our current boats, there isn't any way we would be able to build boats from scratch or even assemble from pre-built parts. We planned out our procurements of surface ships at the Irving Yard so that the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships would be built first, bringing the yard up to snuff before the Canadian Surface Combatants would be built. There is no shipyards able to take on the order realistically even if we wanted to spend years getting them ready, all three main shipyards are entirely full with orders for the Navy and Coast Guard for the next decade atleast.
HHI's submarine yard is 325 km from the DMZ, & about twice that from China. It's in SE Korea. It's closer to Japan than to North Korea.
I think it is fair say that any serious shooting war between these three nations within the next few years (as many are suggesting) won't have any effect on Canada's sub acquisition because firstly, no order is likely before 2028-29, and secondly, the whole world will almost certainly be an ash heap.
I think the French sub is very close to the requirements as Canada basically cut and paste Dutch requirements then added ice ops to the list. Any sub on that list could meet the requirements.
The French design seems like it meets the Canadian requirements but I am unsure if they are able to meet the timelines required for the program. Naval Group needs to finish producing the orders for domestic SSN and SSBN's plus the Dutch order of four boats. Poland is also potentially looking at up to four boats and France is an option there as well. This also applies to Germany, who will entirely be off the table to Canada if Norway and Germany take up their option for additional boats. Poland's program is also looking at the Type 212CD built in Germany as well. The Swedish might have excess capability but Poland is also looking at them as well, although I would likely bet Saab have minimal capability given their lack of continuous building of submarines over the years. Nobody seems willing to give the Spanish a chance for good reason, although it looks like they don't have excess capability given how long their class of boats is seeming to bring into service.
I explained why on the last page of the forum why nuclear powered subs were and remain effectively an impossibility for Canada in basically every aspect, the end of the Harper Govt or beginning of the Trudeau Govt a decade ago wouldn't have wanted to touch nuclear submarine procurement with a 10 ft pole. Australia has fundamentally been viewed as a more serious partner given their long term commitments and the face they have China in their backyard threatening them, Canada does not seemingly have the government support nor the justification to get involved with an eye wateringly expensive nuclear sub procurement.
Canada will very shortly have serious threats in our “top yard”. Sub procurement should have happened a long time ago, perhaps with 4-6 SSKs that worked instead of the crap Chrétien suck us with. This would then have been an entry point into AUKUS which would result in subs for the 2040s onwards.
Canada does not view what is going on in our North with the same amount of alarm as how Australia views China in the Indo-Pacific, nothing will be done until it is far too late regarding our Arctic sovereignty.
Absolutely right on!!
Good questions, but I suspect those two countries are more able to accommodate an order of up to 12 boats than any of the Europeans are. I know there are concerns about Japanese lack of experience with defence exports, but I think their new PM would solve that problem quickly. I really like the Japanese boats. They appear to be very sophisticated, and well built. I don't think they should be discounted from this race.
www.navalnews.com
Japan has two ship yards building their submarines. However, Japan takes 100% of their production capability for itself, has already increased production and also extended service lives to get more boats in service. There is talk of them extending this further. 22 subs is due to their fairly short life, mid life refits for subs are very expensive, they are already producing subs at maximum capacity.
www.forbes.com
asiapacificdefencereporter.com
navalinstitute.com.au
notesfrompoland.com
euro-sd.com
www.eurasiantimes.com
news.usni.org
breakingdefense.com
Not just Canadian submarine acquisitions, CCV, helicopters, fixed wing search and rescue aircraft, and other stuff, either cancelled or acquired at glacial speed.Japan has two ship yards building their submarines. However, Japan takes 100% of their production capability for itself, has already increased production and also extended service lives to get more boats in service. There is talk of them extending this further. 22 subs is due to their fairly short life, mid life refits for subs are very expensive, they are already producing subs at maximum capacity.
If Japan Expands Submarine Fleet To 30, It Will Shape The Pacific’s Undersea Defenses
As the U.S. and allied nations in the Pacific work to maintain their shared edge in undersea warfare over China, America’s submarine fleet will soon begin an unavoidable decline in numbers. If Japan were to grow its submarine fleet from 22 to 30, it could fill the gap.
Korea runs a similar model, but while the Japanese have had quite a large number of subs for decades, Korea is following a bit of a newer model. Korea aims to have 27 submarines.
South Korean submarine launch milestone - APDR
On April 4 South Korean shipbuilder Hyundai Heavy Industries contractually delivered another submarine as part of an attack class programKorea’s big submarine build-up | The Australian Naval Institute
By 2030 the Korean submarine fleet size is expected to stabilize at ~27, and they have to continuously build to replace existing boats, like the Japanese do at the rate of one submarine per year, which is tremendously fast for submarine building.
So both countries with two yards if operating subs for 30 years will have a fleet size of ~30 and will not have any spare or excess capacity.
Also, it is expected that both countries are going to priorities domestic capability, the years of targeting foreign builds to build a bigger domestic industry are now behind them, they now need that industry to provide capability right now. So offers of additional submarines to other countries previously are not as perhaps relevant now as it used to be.
Countries like Korea and Japan have recently become very concerned about their defence capabilities. In particular they are looking for over seas yards and countries that can supply them, less of them supplying overseas yards.
Korea's recent arms sales, have almost always come with new production capabilities. Australia is building a K9 SPG factory, for an order of just 30 K9's. Poland is building a factories/shipyards with the Koreans, and Turkey has some supply capability.
Construction begins on AS9 Huntsman and AS10 resupply vehicle in South Korea
Production of new artillery and military vehicles for the Australian Defence Force has officially begun in South Korea.www.defenceconnect.com.au
Polish and Korean firms sign deal to create missile factory in Poland
The missiles are used by the K239 Chunmoo rocket artillery systems that Poland has purchased from South Korea.Bid for Polish Navy’s Orka programme central to Hanwha presence at MSPO 2024 - European Security & Defence
At MSPO 2024 Hanwha will emphasise the capabilities of its KSS-III submarine, which is being bid for the Polish Navy’s Orka programme.Turkey Signs $200 Million Deal With South Korea As Seoul Starts Eating Into European Defense Market
In May 2022, Turkey’s defense industry and the Altay battle tank project experienced a watershed moment as the domestically produced tank was finally integrated with South Korean engines that had been marred with delays and policy roadblocks. A South Korean company will provide the engines’...
IMO The Koreans are actively looking for underutilized shipyards in western nations. They are more likely to buy a Canadian ship yard(s), than Canada buying a fleet of submarines made in Korea.
Korean shipbuilders seek overseas yards for surging orders - KED Global
South Korean shipbuilders are seeking overseas production bases through mergers and acquisitions to meet soaring demand across the world as they have secured wwww.kedglobal.comSouth Korean Shipbuilder Hanwha Makes $100M Bid to Buy Philly Shipyard, SECNAV Del Toro Praises Deal - USNI News
An American shipyard that builds domestic cargo vessels and training ships for U.S. maritime colleges has agreed to a deal, in which it would be bought by a major South Korean shipbuilder. Pending regulatory approvals, Philly Shipyard is set to be acquired by Hanwha Systems and Hanwha Ocean for...How SECNAV’s claims about S. Korean, Japanese shipbuilders do and do not line up - Breaking Defense
Experts tell Breaking Defense that while Asian shipbuilders have become renowned for good reason, it’s apples and oranges comparing them to the US Navy’s staple prime contractors.
Both Japan and Korea are pretty worried about China. They are planning for a high intensity peer, perhaps even existential, conflict to start within 5 years. Japan and Korea are actively reaching out to build supply and alliances within that period, and beyond, post conflict.
I am sure Canada has its own world view, but I am not sure how keen it will be met by others that are in a more realistic and frantic build up. This type of program maybe should have been started 10-20 years ago.
Both Korea and Japan have been burnt by 3rd party countries with bold defence programs, that then amounted to nothing except wasting a whole bunch of time and resources. Canada's submarines acquisitions are famous case studies for that.
It would make little sense for South Korea to buy a shipyard in Canada, it makes absolutely zero sense for South Korea to buy a shipyard in Canada and then try to build Canada's submarines domestically. Seaspan, Irving and Davie will not be allowed to be bought out by a foreign actor given their importance to Canada and any other shipyard is not remotely equipped to tackle the issue of submarine construction within the next few decades. If South Korea isn't willing to build Canada's submarines in their own yards, they won't get the contract.
