https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/08/canada-down-selects-two-shipbuilders-for-future-canadian-patrol-submarine-project/KSS-III Batch 2>Displacement: Surfaced: 3,600 t, Submerged: 4,000 t>Length/Beam: 89 m / 9.6 m>Speed (submerged): 20 knots>Crew: 50>Propulsion: Diesel-electric + fuel cell AIP + Li-ion batteries>Endurance: >3 weeks submerged; extended w/ Li-ion>Armament: 6x 533mm tubes (torpedoes, Harpoon SSM, mines); 10x VLS (Hyunmoo SLBM/cruise missiles)>Sensors/Systems: Improved sonar (flank array, towed); Hanwha CMS; stealth features>Cost (est.): ~$900M per unitType 212CD>Displacement: Surfaced: 2,500 t, Submerged: ~2,800 t (est.)>Length/Beam: 73 m / 10 m>Speed (submerged): ~20 knots (est.)>Crew: 23-30>Propulsion: Diesel-electric + H2 fuel cell AIP (2x MTU diesels)>Endurance: Up to 3+ weeks submerged>Armament: 6x 533mm tubes (torpedoes, IDAS SAM, NSM ASM); no VLS>Sensors/Systems: ORCCA CMS; advanced sonar; diamond hull for sonar deflection>Cost (est.): ~$900M per unit (program avg.)>KSS-III Advantages: Greater firepower (VLS for strategic strikes), longer range/endurance via Li-ion tech, supports special ops. Ideal for blue-water ops.>212CD Advantages: Superior stealth (hull design reduces echo), smaller/more maneuverable for shallow/Arctic waters, NATO interoperability, lower crew needs.>KSS-III suits offensive roles; 212CD excels in stealthy ASW. Both in production; choice depends on mission (e.g., Arctic vs. global).Place your bets.
Interested to see how Canada fucks this up.
Probably the 212CD for the lack of dependence on Korean weapons + a more proven sub builder. The Canucks are already committing to NSM on their new destroyers, might as well stay with them on your new subs.
>>64172552>downselectedI hate this fucking newspeakSHORTLISTED exists, fucking use it
>>64172552The Germs have ice experience. Koreans don't. The smaller cre size is also a great plus. Germany is in NATO.this means the Canadians will pick Korea, then pivot back to Germany when it's too late.
>Type 212CD>no VLSWTF it's fucking 2025 and buying a new sub with NO VLS for the same price as the Korean one with 10 is absolutely crazy. We have to have VLS subs to be able to launch nukes in the long term as nobody can and would protect us if the US attacks us or Russia/China.VLS subs and with our new ukrainian partners and expertise in rocketery, build nuke ICBMs to safeguard our nation's sovereignty
>>64172552>>Crew: 50>>64173392But Hanwha has already said that the crew size can be diminished to just 30.https://kss-iii.ca/about/>Advanced automation and remote monitoring enable the KSS-III to operate with approximately 30 crew members, maintaining full mission capability with a lean, efficient crew.
>>64173392>this means the Canadians will pick Korea, then pivot back to Germany when it's too late.based leaf knower has spoken
>>64172552In having VLS the worst Korean sub is the better option by default.
>>64173438The Israeli variant does have VLS, and they probably carry nukes.
>>64173478The VLS is currently limited to Korean missiles, which Canada doesn't use and doesn't plan on using for anything else. If they were Tomahawk capable, you'd have a point.
>>64173479Yes but this proposed variant doesn't. The recent chimping out of the US and Russia has shown that paper is cheap and your only ironclad guarantees are nukes. Canada has to have subs able to launch nukes. We can't fight the US airforce and land based nuclear silos/mobile ICBMs are worthless with leave nuke subs as the only viable alternative. Anything else is useless
>>64173487>If they were Tomahawk capable, you'd have a point.>what is vpm
>>64173536VPM isn't the VLS that's being offered on the Korean submarines. That's why it's 10 tubes for Korean missiles instead of 14 tubes for Tomahawks. Korea doesn't operate nor have the power to export VPMs, anyway.
>>64173542>Korea doesn't operate nor have the power to export VPMsNot what the picture here >>64173536 says.
>>64172552Depends which one will give the niggers in Quebec the bigger handout or cut.
>>64173487>The VLS is currently limited to Korean missiles, which Canada doesn't use and doesn't plan on using for anything else.Canada doesn't even have ICBM technology either. If they were to acquire such technology then SK would be the first to sell them.
>>64173561Are you blind? Retarded? The VLS pictured there is not VPM, KSS-III batch II is fitted with 10 cells of KVLS, not VPM. They're two different systems.>>64173569The Hyumoos that can fit in the KVLS aren't ICBMs, so what does this have to do with anything?
>>64173588My mistake, VPM *is* pictured in >>64173536, but it's not fielded by the Koreans.
>>64173588>not VPMThe term VPM here is used as a generalized term for a system in which multiple missiles are fitted inside a single silo, autismo.
>>64172552Nobody wants Korean trash
>>64173600No, it's not. VPM is specifically the Virginia Payload Module, developed by the USA for the Virginia-class submarines. Otherwise, we'd call the VLS system on the Ohios VPMs, but we don't.
>>64173588>The Hyumoos that can fit in the KVLS aren't ICBMs, so what does this have to do with anything?KVLS is for surface vessels and it's an outright copy of Mk 41, we don't even know what they call it for the vls used in subs yet.
>>64173600Anon what does the V in VPM stand for?
>>64173620No anon KVLS is not a Korean made Mk41.
>>64173376It says shortlisted first
>>64173608Unless you're a poojeet tier ELS, you would have already noticed that it's not how it is supposed to be understood.
>>64173634>A-AkshuallyNobody cares about your nomenclature, that's why the context matters.
>>64173640>No anon KVLS is not a Korean made Mk41.Please, enlighten me.
>>64173649Oh, so what did the diagram showing the seven-cell module titled "VPM" mean? If the Korean one is also a "VPM", then how come the one with five cells, as used on KSS-III batch II, isn't labeled as such? Maybe it's because "VPM" is "Virginia Payload Module", and the diagram is comparing it to Korea's system? Did you perhaps try translating the image? Or are you mentally retarded?
>>64173643Yes and it should have stayed that way throughout
>>64173654The context that VPM only exist on the submarine class they were named after.
>>64173660Read >>64173600I literally explained to you that VPM here is used as a common noun instead of a proper noun. Why are you trying to be so stringent on word choices which absolutely makes you look absurd? Are you suffering from a brain damage?
>>64173649ironic
>>64173690Yes anon we understand that you want to use VPM as a generic term, that isn't going to stop calling out your retardation.
>>64173690Can we see all of these people using VPM as a common noun?
>>64173600>The term VPM here is used as a generalized termWe know, fuckwit, we're trying to tell you just how badly it's wrongly used hereAnd you don't even have the excuse of the genericisation of language because the VPM isn't even fucking fielded yet>>64173649>contextIt is in fact the exact context of interoperable munitions in this particular case that demands greater specificity in terminology, so no, you don't get that excuse for your gaffe either>it's not how it is supposed to be understoodIrrelevant>ELSOh the irony>>64173690>VPM here is used as a common noun instead of a proper nounYes, we know, and we're telling you that it's wrong and you should suckstart a Mossberg
>>64172552The KSS-IIII does seem like the obvious choice, especially with the River Class Destroyers being light on VLS cells.
>>64173656NTA but KVLS has slightly different dimensions and is only integrated with Korean weapons atm. It's why they still have Mk41 on the Sejongs, so that they can have American SM-2, SM-3, and SM-6 for AA purposes. Also, the Korean ones have an issue with cracking decks.
>>64174720Its damn near identical with identical cell width and lengths. The reason they have to keep Mk41 around is because the US isn't gonna allow Korea to integrate US missiles into their rip off. The ultimate goal in the end is to just stop having to pay licensing fees. They could easily just have their domestic missiles integrated into Mk41 like the nips did, but that's just extra costs. They did the same shit with their OTO 76mm knock off, so 100% of the cost goes back into Korea instead of paying licensing fees. Korea has always been China light and tried to copy the S-97 before it even entered the mind of China. South Korea needs to catch more shit for being absolute rat bastards when it comes to stolen designs.
>>64174871Oh I'm aware what their end goals are, it's why the Block II Sejongs have more KVLS compared to the first two, even if they give up a lot of potential armament for the decision to do so.
>>64173438Canada doesn't have nukes, and these subs are supposed to protect their territorial waters.You would have to be retarded to buy the larger subs (more expensive maintenance) with larger space requirements in docks (higher costs), larger crew requirements (higher costs) and VLS cells (more expensive maintenance) that are practically useless for you. Then you also have to adapt the sub to NATO standards, which will cost even more money.So Canada will probably do it.
>>64173516The US would invade Canada instantly if they were trying to develop nuclear weapons.
>>64173479>>64173516dakar class subs will be much bigger than 212cd, possibly even the E variantwe are talking >90m long, >4000t SSBK here
>>64176938For comparison, 212cd is about 75m long
>>64173392> this means the Canadians will pick Korea, then pivot back to Germany when it's too late.Too real
>>64173438except korean vls is solely to launch their equivalent of Iskander, don't see much of an use case for canucks.212cd is planned with tyrfing missile with twice the range of hyunmoo too, so it's not like they are planning to leave the boat underarmed for long
>Canada once had plans for a fleet of a dozen nuclear submarinesWhat dreams they had.
>>64173649>>64173600>>64173561>>64173536the gookshill is back ???friendly reminder that the whole gook sub industry existence relies solely on tkms gesture of good will.You gooks really are even more of a subhuman race thank even chinksGood thing at least that with that sub 0.8 birth rate, gooks wont even exist as a nation in 80 years
>>64179953I don't even think it's gookshill, I think it's just someone who was extremely insistent on using VPM as a generic term for submarine vertical launch systems
>>64179983He seems to be putting too much emphasis on SLBMs when they aren't useful to Canada which is a little too much for a coincidence. He's also trying to act like they are unique when compared to other SLBMs when it reality its a copy of the ARSS booster that jeets use for their SLBMs. I think the jeets and now gooks are the only modern users of this system which is an embarrassing club to be a part of. I think the only other user was the USSR for it's R-39 series in the early 80s, but that's it.
>>64173392fpbp
>>64180175SLBM isn't necessarily always useless. But the SLBM koreans are using definitely is. 270 nmi is too short for any kind of maritime deep strike capability.Otherwise, TLAM can be fired from any 21 in torpedo tube just fine, or whatever sub launched JSM germs and norgs are cooking
>>64173392based leafchampion in national fuck-ups
>>64174720> cracking deckswhich one ?
>>64172552leaf here, please nuke us already
>>64182967KDX-IIhttps://www.koreascience.kr/article/JAKO201728537687521.page
>>64180724I'm not saying they are all useless, I'm saying they are useless to Canada. You could give the Canadians subs carrying Tridents and it really doesn't benefit them since they can't be leveraged in any meaningful capacity that isn't provided by being America's hat/Commonwealth/Anglosphere. However like you said, the Korean SLBMs are useless to basically everyone as they don't have the range to do deep strikes and any other strikes would require them to be in danger of ASW retaliation.
>>64176554Nothing's too cheap for national security when you share the biggest border in the world with a deranged warmongerer neighbor that made threats to annex us and plotting our economical ruin>>64176561Then we should fund the Trump administration for a 2028 election to hopefully throw the US into a full blown civil war and build nukes during the chaos>b-but you can't!Just like you did with dozens of regime changes the past century with the recent agitprop in Greenland and ties with the Albertan separarionists
>>64180724The range is sufficient for a sub in the right position to hit any part of the Korean Peninsula, so it's good enough for South Korea's specific use case. Not so useful for Canada.
>>64174073doubt the korean can freely export their SLBM
>>64173438you wont fit a freaking ICBM in a 4000t sub, korean SLBM are for hitting their best brethens up north.Of course, unless you go with an enlarged sail design, much like the old soviet 60s subs
>>64185792The RCN could just pay 12 billion dollars to the irvings to evaluate a design study on anticipating the challenges of a proposal to redesign the VLS tubes to fit different missiles.
germs will get BTFO by superior Korean expertise, like always
>>64186551>and other lies to tell yourselfLots of people buy HK. Not many buy Daewoo
>>64186526Painfully true
>>64186551Korea has more German subs than Korean subs
>>64188530had to buy them to figure out how subs work in order to make their own
>>64186526and which missile that would be ? Korean doesn't have any sub-launched missile that would worth the extra cost of having VLSThe US is unlikely to hand out their missile integration with any foreign made system, that included KVLS on a plate.a TBM isn't worth it, the VLS on korean subs is merely an expensive gimmick for the leaf.If anything, germs "muh stealth" might actually prove useful in the arctic, since they probably will be shadowing russian SSN/SSBN more than usual up there
>>64189120>and which missile that would be ?No one knows. But they're definitely going to change their minds three times during the fair and transparent pre-engineering indigenous consultation process, before just going back to the original gook missiles except now they cost 18× as much per unit and it's now the year 2060. Don't worry though, the irvings are here to help in anyway they can with the national ship building strategy as long you pay them a billion dollars and they don't have to pay any taxes.
>>64173338We'll just dick around with budget for years and then cancel the contracts after wasting tens of millions of dollars, like the F35 thing.
>>64188545So now they're selling totalllly-not-copies of German subs as 'Korean'?Or are they just 'inspired by', 'based on previous experiennce', 'concept seen and built upon', etc.?
>>64185999Yeah and why do you think Canada needs nukes? Idk, maybe it's the neighbor right next to us threatening to annex us so no need for fully fledged ICBMs because we are exacrly in the same situation is south korea
>>64186526well played
>>64173338Same as the F35 except now it will be the Conservatives opportunity to be retarded>Order will be placed>Opposition will criticize order>Opposition will gain power and cancel order>Will eventually order anyway at a high prices after an expensive trial
Way too much focus on VLS and not enough focus on the fact that the KSS-III has AIP + Li-ion while the 212CD only has AIP.AIP + Li-ion "fixes" the problem of snorkeling because you don't have to do it as often and when you do, it's much quicker. It literally fixes the biggest weakness of subs.And even if they decide to go AIP+Li-ion for the CD like they are with the NFS, the Koreans are still ahead as they have finished development and have already deployed their AIP + Li-ion subs.>>64173392Arctic ops gets thrown around as a talking point but the fact is that it's almost exclusively nuclear subs that do Arctic ops. Even the 212A can't do Arctic ops. In fact, I don't think there is any conventional diesel electric sub that can do Arctic ops.
>>64190810Except Koreans are claiming 3+ weeks of fully submerged enduranceU-32 was proven to be able to submerged for 20 days and covered about 2800 nautical miles transit during 2013 WESTLANT exercise.And that’s with the old LABCD is guaranteed to have LIB+more advanced fuel cell+ more reactants storage.So the ball is still in german side
>>64179953https://www.nippon.com/en/news/yjj2025082900442/>Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd. is suspected of falsifying some inspection data regarding the mileage of *diesel engines for submarines* of the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force, following a similar scandal involving private ship engines, informed sources said Friday.doth the weeb redditor protest too much? lol. lmao, even.
>>64190817does not bode well when you straight up liehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-32_(S182)18 days, not 20. you are literally lying to overestimate the U-32's capabilities while automatically assuming the lowest end of the KSS-III.The KSS-III batch 1 (which is AIP only) has been known to actually go for 20 days (and not 18 lmao)https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/south-korean-submarine-launch-milestone/#:~:text=The%20six%20Batch%201%20&%202%20boats,generations%2C%20including%20those%20of%20KSS%2DIII%20Batch%201.>The six Batch 1 & 2 boats all have Vertical Launch Systems for a variety of land attack missiles, as well as six torpedo tubes. All have Air Independent Propulsion giving underwater endurance of +20 days – and the **Batch 2 submarines will have improved performance using lithium-ion batteries** rather than the lead-acid ones used in earlier generations, including those of KSS-III Batch 1.So if we're comparing apples to apples, the KSS-III batch 1 > type 212A. And if we add Li-ion to both sides then KSS-III batch 2 > type 212CD. And that's being generous considering that Korean battery tech is ahead of german battery tech.not to mention that you say "guaranteed" to hide the fact that the 212CD is still under development and the design process has only been finished recently.
>>64190810>Arctic ops gets thrown around as a talking point but the fact is that it's almost exclusively nuclear subs that do Arctic opsWhats the definition of "Artic ops"? Long duration under ice caps, or simply deploying above the Arctic circle?
>>64190858> straight up lieNope> https://web.archive.org/web/20170315012510/public.navy.mil/subfor/underseawarfaremagazine/Issues/Archives/issue_51/WESTLANT.htmlTaken straight from navy reportAlso> asiadefencepacificreporterSaid who, again ?> Batch 2 will have improved performanceSo will 212cd, and both are based on self-reportedCome back when you actually done something other than failed to detect best Korean submarinecheonan sinking did spell quite a lot about your navy capability > Korean battery tech is aheadProof ? We are talking military grade LIB here. Not samshit buggy and explosive death trap
>>64190883Literally every other source on that event says 18 days and not 20.And even if it is true, all you've proven is that it might be equivalent to the KSS-III batch 1 and you're a retard who can't tell the difference between batch 1 and batch 2.>Said who, againAll weapon specs are self reported, tourist. Doubly retarded because you're casting shade on self-reporting while the 212CD literally isn't made yet. Even you germs have no idea what it will be when it's finished because it's not finished.>both are based on self-reportedIt can be self-reported when it's finished. Until then it's at best a plan, not actual reporting.>cheonan sinkingIf you're making a point about submarines with this then you're absolutely fucking retarded. Whose subs was Korea using during that time?Crazy that once Korea started making its own subs, NK didn't sink any more ships and that Korea starting doing things krauts can't like putting in AIP into their subs and launching SLBMs.You might want to avoid making arguments that make you seem completely clueless and undermines every single one of your arguments.>military grade LIB hereIf you don't think that smartphone Li-ion battery tech isn't transferable to military applications then you're just brainless.Somehow batteries don't equal batteries. Not to mention that Mercedes Benz uses Korean batteries. Literally your biggest industry must source its EV batteries from Korea.The simple fact that Korea has developed and deployed a sub with both AIP and Li-ion in conjunction is absolute proof that Korean Li-ion tech is ahead.
>>64190922> krauts can't like putting in AIP into their subs and launching SLBMsThe heck are you blabbering about ?And no one give a damn about your iskander clone, kim > If you don't think that smartphone Li-ion battery tech isn't transferable to military applications then you're just brainlessOh great, if Korean civil industry is a good indicator of anything, then it’s hard to wait for crispy korean to hit the news once their sub inevitably starts incinerating the crew.And Tkms will be using its own LIB, not Korean cheap shit
>>64190932nothing left to say, hans? not surprising since you've been shilling a sub that literally does not exist yet.you can daydream and lie all you want, but the fact is that tkms hasn't even so much as put out a protorype. They're only recently done with the design phase, lmao.
>>64172552https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/a-look-at-the-race-to-replace-canadas-rapidly-aging-fleet-of-submarines/>Hanwha’s hard sell is how quickly it can supply Canada with vessels. If it gets a contract by next year, the company has said it can deliver its first sub by 2032, a total of four subs by 2035 and then another sub each year. >TKMS: Germany and Norway already have orders for 12 in the queue. If Canada joined it wouldn’t be stuck at the back of the line but would have to work out agreements with both the company and the other customers about delivery dates.>The company says it can meet Canada’s tight 2035 deadline for delivering the first of the subs. Its presentation this past week to Canadian officials showed first delivery in 2034 and a second one by 2037.>only two subs by 2037
>>64190817>So the ball is still in german sidethe ball is still in Germany's court you fucking pajeet ESL
>>64191078> nothing left to sayIt seems it’s you who actually ran out of thing to argue, so I’ll remind you once more> Korea starting doing things krauts can't like putting in AIP into their subs and launching SLBMs.What are you blabbering about with “putting in aip” ? One of those side effects of microdick ?> you can daydream and lie all you want, but the fact is that tkms hasn't even so much as put out a protorype. They're only recently done with the design phase, lmao.Again, it’s your obligation to prove that your microdick asses is ahead in LIB tech, not mineAnd, it’s actually Tkms who first constructed the hybrid aip+lib, only a few years behind japs in putting lib on a sub, with actual operational boats by 2025.>>64192252Cope, I’ll keep butchering your precious english
>>64173392100%
>>64178162Used to have the forth largest navy with a couple of aircraft carriers tooThe Avro Arrow wasn't and was never going to be the wundefwaffe CBC and leafboomers pretend it was going to be but the pendulum of counteropinion on it has swung too hard in the opposite direct where people pretend it was going to be unviable dogshit; it was have basically just been the Canuck 2.0 and whether it was better off for Canada overall to be cancelled it almost a perfect moot pointThe C7 and Cadpat were extremely innovative for their timr
>>64183673>nothings too cheap when you have a deranged warmonger to the southAnon I'm not sure subs would be a big factor considering that Canada shares the longest land border in the world with AmericaAnd even so twelve submarines really are only good for spooking the chinks and moscals out of the arctic
>>64172552Hey, I recognize that place on the left. It's near the Bruno u-boat base that the Germans built back in WW2. It's still in use, though obviously not by the Germans.
>>64190810I said "ice experience" not "Arctic ops" for good reasonNot expecting under-ice miracles here, just that the krauts have more cold-weather shipbuilding experience (famously) which the kimchis(?) don'tIn a race this tight every little bit counts, and ice ops is 1 of the few areas where Canada can actually make a unique contribution
>>64192531>CadpatDPM was superior
>>64173338They will cancel the project all together in 5 years for more jeet and somalian integration programs
>>64174073>river class destroyers being light on vls cellsNah, they’ll be fine with t26
>>64199426The River class (type 26) only has 24 Mk41 VLS Cells. (I know it has box launched NSM + a pair of RAMs, but it's still light for a high end surface combatant. Admiral Topshee, Commander of the RCN, has also said as much in interviews that the magazine depth is a bit light on the River class, and that the RCN should/would be looking into other ways to increase missile magazine depth/VLS counts within the fleet.
>>64199949>24 Mk41 VLSif they stuff it with ESSM that's nearly a hundred missileswhat Topshee probably wants is long-range air defence, which I sympathise with, but T26 doesn't have the radar for that anywayunless the RCN T26s add a big radar on their ships there's not much point increasing the VLS cell count
>>64200102The river class is getting SPY-7 radars and AEGIS, which is a significant upgrade over the Type 997 Artisan system on the British/Norwegian boats. Sure you can quad pack all of the MK41s, but you're never sailing with that configuration, and even then, 96 ESSMs is a fairly shallow magazine when you're facing the prospect of swarm/saturation attacks which seems to be the way of things in the coming years. The RCN doesn't have the luxury of a separate air warfare destroyer like the Aussies with the Hobart's, or the RN with the current type 45 & future type 83, the RCD is inevitably going to find itself pushed into roles that would be better suited to a dedicated air warfare destroyer.
Canada is a small decaying irrelevant country and military procurements need to reflect that factWhy are we buying subs
>>64200841>The river class is getting SPY-7 radars and AEGISoh, rightthen in that case yeah they should ask BAE to cram in at least 72 Mk41s
>>64183673>civil warThat would just be a long weekend of killing leftists.
>>64183673>plotting our economic ruinYou faggots have been doing that to yourselves, it's going to be hilarious watching Alberta pull a Republic of Texas 2:Electric Boogaloo.
