www.navalnews.com
Hanwha seems to be convinced they have a major advantage in this program and are pushing it rather far. I've yet to see any other Canadian officials be given a tour like this elsewhere. They seem very confident from that article that they can meet all of the requirements, which I don't think any of the other competitors can claim. I believe only Sweden has vertical launch capability on the table at this point and even that isn't proven, very large advantage for the Koreans if strike and anti-ship is important to the RCN.Hanwha Ocean welcomes the Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy - Naval News
The Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, visited Hanwha Ocean's Geoje shipyard and discussed Canada's upcoming submarine acquisition project.
Hanwha stating they can meet IOC "well" before the deadline is a big deal IMHO.
Also the Hanwha staff wearing Canadian poppies is some extreme attention to detail. The more I see of this bid the more I think the RCN will be sailing in Korean subs. Not to sure about the ballistic missiles though... removed or concerted to Tomahawk launch I would suspect.
I think they have two major advantages. A sub that is sailing (not a paper one) and they have yard space to start immediately.
breakingdefense.com
Canada was spending just over 4% of GDP in 1960 and this declined to just over 2% by 1970. Affordability for SSNs or any other military kit is simply a question of commitment based on threat. 1960 was at the peak (or just about) of the Cold War so 4% was not unreasonable. One can make the argument the geopolitical environment is starting to look more like 1960 than 1990 now (and China is much more capable than the USSR ever was). 1.4 % GDP is a disgrace and 2.0% is now insufficient based on current events. Many countries will be moving into the 2.5 to 3.0% GDP by the end of the decade, perhaps more. SSNs would be affordable at 3% GDP but delivery would be at least 20 years for the first boat and that isn’t acceptable. Unfortunately SSK delivery isn’t much better and very likely won’t be available when stuff hits the fan in Asia.For those who keep pushing nuclear subs, another example of why this is basically unaffordable, even if we double spending.
AUKUS will 'cannibalize' other programs with no budget boost: Former top Aussie general - Breaking Defense
At the same conference, US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell urged the incoming Trump administration to work closely with Australia and New Zealand to counter a "relentless" China and not to turn inward.
Time to revisit the French SSN option? (see 1987-88 Canada class program for 10 SSNs)
Depends what you define as submarines on paper and short time frames.
Even if SSN's were potentially on the table for Canada, the fact that French submarine reactors require refueling every 7-8 years due to their fuel type would significantly increase costs and complexities for Canada. Compare this to US/UK reactor designs which are entirely sealed for the lifetime of the submarine due to the higher yield fuel utilized and it makes any comparison not look especially charitable to the French. Costs of the boats themselves isn't the primary issue we're dealing with, it's the gigantic logistical, regulatory, political and training hurdles many different branches of government would need to jump through in order to even remotely stick the landing. Canada does not have the stomach for this sort of risk in a procurement program and likely never will, it's not especially helpful to keep dredging this idea up over and over.
As far as the Germans go, I think their design (212CDE) is very competitive however, I think there is serious concerns about their ability to deliver on our required timeline. Germany has two boats of the baseline Type 212CD type currently ordered, with a delivery date of 2031 + 2034 alongside an additional four boats planned as a minimum order AND three additional boats on top of that expected. Norway has four boats currently under contract with delivery dates set as 2029, 2030, 2033 and 2035 respectively, they are also looking at an additional pair of boats added onto this order as well.
Arguably the two most important items.
TKMS is making some investments in their production facilities in Germany, so they may be able to accelerate their build rate. (For some reason the link is "null". It is an active link however.)
Some more on this, my question is why is TKMS really wanting to off load the marine operation with its booming order book for subs? As a buyer, Canada is hopefully asking this question…well maybe not junior’s gang of incompetent fools.
