there are only two bids left, Korean KSS-III and German-Norwegian Type 212CDwhich is more likely to get selected?pros for the KSS-III: VLS starters for ballistic missilespros for the Type 212CD: stealth, interoperability with Germany and Norway in arctic waters
>>64432893>which is more likely to get selectedThe wrong one. Its Canadian procurement we're talking about here after all
Iunno, one of them, then it'll get challenged to see if muh corruption was involved, and then reevaluated against the competitor to see if it's the RIGHT equipment for CanadaTM, it'll drag out for two more years, then they'll once more opt to buy the one they'd already originally decided on previously, now for three times the original sum.
>>64432898>>64432916do you think Canada wants submarine launched ballistic missiles?
>>64432893Canada doesn't operate any ballistic missiles, but if they plan to in the future this would be a good starting point. This could be a big choice for the direction they take their armed forces into the future.
>>64432923In an ideal world, sure, but that's not the one we live in. We live in the one where the FAC has been the redheaded stepchild of the country for the last fifty years and feels like it's a few days away from someone throwing up their arms and saying << Nous Costa Rica maintenent ! >> Give up hope of it ever being fixed any time soon..
>>64432923I think Canada dont really know what they want, or at the very least will somehow change their mind halfway through
>>64432929>>64432930>>64432926I doubt Canada wants that capability, would be a huge shift for them imo. As if they intend to sail up the Chinese/Russian coast with their diesel subs and strike land targets there, and what else would it be good for? They probably just want to patrol their coasts. I wonder if the Koreans would also offer their boat without those VLS cells, otherwise it seems like more of a liability.
>>64432940Doesn't seem like the KSS-III is a good fit. Worst Koreans need VLS so they can wreck Lil' Kim's shit, but Canadians don't need them for anything. Type 212CD feels to me the correct choice.
>>64433052I think so too. Plus, afaik, Type 212CD is stealthier and perhaps better adapted to arctic conditions since Norway is involved. The Norwegians also offered the Canadians to use their maintenance facility in Bergen as blueprint for such a facility in Canada. And the Canadians want offset deals, meaning the other side should buy Canadian gear in return. Germany is buying CMS-330 from LockMart Canada as combat system for its surface vessels plus Bombardier Global 6000 for its Pegasus airborne SIGINT (and potentially for GlobalEye). Idk what the Koreans offered to buy in return. Maybe they can offer cheaper submarines and/or faster delivery, but otherwise I think the German-Norwegian offer has more going for it.
>>64433089It doesn't make logistical sense. Ex. if you need some sort of componentry, you can just sail across the Atlantic in roughly a week, from Halifax to Bergen (assuming a steady 15 knots). Whereas it'd take about twice as much from Vancouver to Busan.
>>64432940Haven't you retards bit on a bit about Muh America? Even if it's all kayfabe if your procurement retards have any balls they'll ride that into capability. Which could be a double-agent signal, because actually having capability is a credible signal to the US you will be slightly useful before China eats all your institutions from the inside out and we have to take you out behind the shed>>64432893Although you ARE The Arctic Guys this hemisphere maybe it makes sense to go with the 212CD in that case>>64432916Based and procurement pilled
since this thread seems appropriate, let's also talk about the ongoing Polish procurement for new submarines.offers include:>South Korea/Hanwha Ocean: KSS-III>Germany/TKMS: Type 212CD>France/Naval Group: Shortfin Barracuda>Sweden/Saab Kockums: A26 Blekinge class>Italy/Fincantieri: S800 coastal submarine>Spain/Navantia: S-80 Plus>UK/Babcock(?): mentioned in article but unclear what conventional submarine they would offerthe only requirement I could find out about was involvment of the local PGZ Grouppersonally I think the Italian and Swedish offers are probably best suited since both are relatively small designs that seem appropriate for the Baltic Seahttps://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2025/10/14/its-crunch-time-for-poland-to-pick-a-new-submarine-design/
pic related; the small&light S800 coastal/shallow water sub by Fincantierihttps://www.navalnews.com/event-news/navdex-2023/2023/02/fincantieri-unveils-s800-coastal-and-shallow-water-submarine/
apparently Turkey is working on a small&light coastal submarine too, wonder if that could be of interest to Polandhttps://www.naval-technology.com/projects/stm500-attack-submarine-turkey/
KSS-III and Shortfin Barracuda seem oversized for the Baltic Sea, the Netherlands just ordered the latter precisely with long endurance for ocean deployments in mindType 212CD and S-80 Plus are in between, but perhaps a bit large for the Baltic Sea too
>>64432893Who gives a shit, delivery of maximum one unit by post-ww3 2035 regardless. By the time these things enter service, Alberta will be part of the US
thanks for the bump faggot
>>64432923>do you think Canada wants submarine launched ballistic missiles?SUBROC from the sail?
>>64433420>>Sweden/Saab Kockums: A26 Blekinge classNot going to happen, Sweden hasn't build a sub in 30 years and the latest news is that the program is delayed with massive cost overruns.
>>64433571Why is there a giant cavity in the upper bow?
>>64433521Yes, the Baltic tends to favor small subs. Germans designed the Type 205 and 206 specifically for Baltic service. S800 appears to be the best fit.
>>64432940>As if they intend to sail up the Chinese/Russian coast with their diesel subs and strike land targets there, and what else would it be good for?Unironically, ASBMs have been a sort of trend in recent years. Hanwha, the main supplier of Hyunmoo ballistic missiles, has just recently showcased its new ASBM concept launched from the K239. The same concept can be applied to submarine-borne variants.>>64433089>Idk what the Koreans offered to buy in return. Their new SIGINT and AWACS will be based on the Bombardier Global 6500.https://theaviationist.com/2025/10/21/l3harris-receives-contract-rokaf-aewc/>>64433157>you can just sail across the Atlantic in roughly a week, from Halifax to Bergen (assuming a steady 15 knots).>Whereas it'd take about twice as much from Vancouver to Busan.I don't know if it makes any difference, since most of the products we use are coming from Asia nowadays, including the semiconductors.
I’m a member of the Royal Canadian navy, most of us are hoping for the Korean subs as it seems like the best deal. That said I can see the Germans winning as Canada wants a trade deal with the EU and the RCN just bought some German resupply ships
>>64433910I mean, for stalking and monitoring Russian boats, German ones would probably be a better choice.KSS is more like a type 214 overdosed on steroid, still decent and pack more firepower, but those are meant for kimmy up north. So I’m unsure what canada, whose landmass is literal vaster than china would find a lot of use with it.Though probably Korean could get the boats down the slipway much faster, so that’s something to consider
>>64433881>Unironically, ASBMs have been a sort of trend in recent years. Hanwha, the main supplier of Hyunmoo ballistic missiles, has just recently showcased its new ASBM concept launched from the K239. The same concept can be applied to submarine-borne variants.Type 212CD will be able to launch Naval Strike Missile and the future Supersonic Strike Missile from its torpedo tubes, so not sure how much of an advantage that would be, but fair point>Their new SIGINT and AWACS will be based on the Bombardier Global 6500.good to know.>>64433910>I’m a member of the Royal Canadian navydoubt>most of us are hoping for the Korean subs as it seems like the best deal.why? due to the VLS cells?
>>64433713that's the blowhole.
>>64434166>torpedo tubesThat's completely missing the point of the VLS, which enables launching various missiles without reducing the number of torpedoes. The Type 216 was the last proposal from the krauts that came close to this, but it was never realized.
>>64433910German subs would also fall under the EU rearm loan scheme that Canada may get accepted into.
>>64434166Why?They can have them to us by 2030
>>64434220Money was never the focus of the program, since Canada is one of the largest oil producers in the world. Plus, there are like10 different Canadian companies that have teamed up with Hanwha.
Investing in subs seems silly when China has the tech to basically make the ocean transparent now.
>>64434317China will grow larger. I post for China!
>>64434219>That's completely missing the point of the VLS, which enables launching various missiles without reducing the number of torpedoes.that doesn't make sense. whether you store your missiles in/behind the torpedo tubes or in a separate VLS seems irrelevant.>The Type 216 was the last proposal from the krauts that came close to this, but it was never realized.TKMS is building subs with VLS for the Israeli navy.>>64434226fair point. speed of delivery seems to be the biggest selling point of the Korean offer. if they can make true on that, but I'll assume they can.
>>64433710That's perfect. Canada won't have to waste effort coming up with cost overruns of their own.
>>64434440>whether you store your missiles in/behind the torpedo tubes or in a separate VLS seems irrelevant.Ask the Japanese why they would want VLS for their future subs.https://meta-defense.fr/en/2025/10/08/future-Japanese-VLS-Nuke-submarines/
>>64432923When Canada is fully jeeted its colonist government of Indians will want to have ballistic missiles as a deterrent against Pakistan. They are just planning for that eventuality, give it another 14 years before Canada is majority Indian.
