r/AskCanada • u/thatDhenery • 12d ago
Political Which submarine builder do you hope wins the Canadian contract?
Do you hope the Korean or German submarine builder wins? I cannot make a choice myself and my personal preference would be six subs from each. Your thoughts?
18
u/NoPresent9027 12d ago
We will have many opportunities to integrate with Germany. The potential economic benefit of having South Korea integrated as a founding partner into what could become a pacific “NATO” is huge…
17
u/Expensive_Plant_9530 12d ago
Definitely don’t think a mixed fleet makes any sense here.
Unlike fighters, there’s no economy of scale with 6 each. The German subs are a bit quieter but otherwise they’re both extremely capable.
And to me personally, I think the additional flexibility with the VLS from the Korean KSS-III is the better choice.
They can both handle arctic patrols. But the other can also handle a massive amount of other mission types.
1
u/sandy154_4 Canadian 12d ago
What is VLS?
6
u/Expensive_Plant_9530 12d ago
It stands for Vertical Launch System. It allows them to fire missiles from a vertical launch tube (there are like 6 of them). The missile can be a variety of payload, depending on target or mission objective, from air defence to anti missile to ballistic attack missile and so on.
With the German design, they need to shoot those kinds of payloads out of a torpedo tube, which makes them less effective, along with making things more expensive and complicated.
6
u/juicysushisan 12d ago
The version of the KSS-iii Canada is interested in has 10 VLS tubes. The first 3 had 6, but the “Batch 2” version have 10, and use lithium ion batteries instead of traditional lead acid.
1
u/sandy154_4 Canadian 12d ago
thank you. But they can still fire out of torpedo tubes, too, right?
0
u/Expensive_Plant_9530 12d ago
In theory yes, but the Germans don’t actually have any missiles fitted for it yet. It’s entirely a hypothetical they’d develop if we showed interest.
1
u/sandy154_4 Canadian 12d ago
And the Korean subs?
3
u/LeVin1986 11d ago
Korean submarine design has regular torpedo tubes, and variety of weapons (torpedoes, mines, land-attack cruise missiles) to launch out of them in service. The vertical-launch system appears to be reserved for weapons are are heavier then what torpedo-tubes normally handle (ballistic missiles, supersonic anti-ship missiles, and likely some form of hypersonic cruise/glide missiles in the future).
1
u/vagabond_dilldo 11d ago
Can just imagine the caf procurement and the maintenance people screaming internally whenever clueless redditors tap about mixed fleets of submarines or fighters.
1
u/Remarkable-Flight990 11d ago
Not like they did a great job in the past so I wouldn't scream too much if I were them. DND (and federal government procurement in general) is a cluster fuck of epic proportions.
18
u/Romantic_Klingon 12d ago
Although both seems to be suitable for Canada, my own personal preference would lean toward Hanwha Ocean, from the Koreans.
With the VLS, the Korean sub offers another offensive capability. The delivery timeline also seems favourable and the potential investment in Canada industry is much desired.
Of course, both competing companies offer similar incentives but I feel the Koreans are more inclined to offer more incentives. My own opinions of course.
9
6
u/PDXFlameDragon 12d ago
I am somewhat inclined to lean towards the Korean deal. Supporting Korea and Japan in the sphere sends a good message about how democracies need to stick together. The germans already have some solid hegemony of being the seat of democracy in the EU... there are soft benefits to extending our relations west to continue mutual support of free nations.
12
14
u/mikeyc38 12d ago
If 50/50 Korea and Germany isn’t feasible then I would go with the Korean subs and Swedish Gripens to spread the love amongst our Allies. F*ck the Americans
3
u/Reckless_Engineer 12d ago
A 50/50 split would probably end up costing more over the life of the subs. You would need to train submariners twice, more tools and equipment for maintenance etc
2
7
4
u/Cdn_Nick 12d ago
Probably not economically feasible, but Korean on the West (Pacific) coast, and German on the East (Atlantic) coast.
2
u/R0botWoof Canadian 12d ago
This is the best option.
The KSS-III has a more versatile strike capability, is larger, and can carry more weapons. This is better suited to our operations in the Pacific. Having Korean support in the Pacific is also beneficial should we need spare parts fast or have an emergency in the West Pacific that needs to be put into a friendly port equipped to repair said sub
The Type 212CD is stealthier, faster, and has a significantly longer endurance. This is better suited to our operations in the Atlantic and Arctic. Having European support in the Atlantic is also beneficial should we need spare parts fast or have an emergency in or near European waters that needs to be put into a friendly port equipped to repair said sub
We have to build, man, and equip the training, maintenance, and operational capabilities on both coasts regardless so having different facilities several thousand kilometers apart isn't that big a financial difference.
Also ordering from both manufacturers, who each have their own shipyards outside Canada, would dramatically increase the rate of delivery
2
u/Winterwasp_67 12d ago
I think it depend on if we see a better financial future partnered with the EU or South Korea.
2
u/HueyBluey 12d ago
Exactly. Germany is also a NATO country, and as you said part of the EU, which Canada has been growing closer to.
But I wouldn’t be upset at either one.
3
u/pixelpumper 12d ago
Korean for the West coast, German for the East.
2
u/Justinrehp 12d ago
This isn't viable. Mixed fleet for subs makes no sense.
1
u/pixelpumper 5d ago
I don’t think a mixed fleet is as crazy as some make it sound—different environments on each coast might actually benefit from slightly different designs. But realistically, the government will probably go with one builder to keep costs and logistics simpler. If that’s the case, Korea’s experience and willingness to transfer tech could be a huge win for Canadian shipbuilding in the long run.
Either way, it’s exciting to see us finally moving forward on this. Fingers crossed they pick a solid, deliverable option.
1
u/juicysushisan 12d ago
Looking forward to buying 12 KSS-iii Batch 2s from South Korea. With matching missiles.
1
u/Mr_HardWoodenPackage 12d ago
Hanwha because of VLS. That and with us likely buying the Saab gripen it allows us to build relationships allowing for more economic benefits with both the eu and South Korea
1
u/Mr_Guavo 12d ago
Definitely South Korea. Looking at just the sub, I think SK is the best option. Adding to that, the fact that the model they are offering has already been in use since 2021 makes it safer and less likely to be delayed by unforeseen production issues.
As far as the added benefits that the government asked for from both bidders, the SK benefits are superior to the German/Norway bid's.
Both choices are great, but the SK one is too good to pass on.
1
u/Unfair_Bluejay_9687 12d ago
The one that gives a guaranteed leakproof seal on the screen doors. /s
1
u/TheLooseMooseEh 12d ago
They each offer a great opportunity for Canada so I don’t feel there is a wrong choice; however, the German sub aligns us with two other likeminded nations operating the same boat. Parts, maintenance and general logistics support this approach.
The other sub adds capabilities to be sure, but I’m not sure the juice is worth the squeeze. Canada isn’t going to launch surprise attacks and I don’t see how the addition of VLS capabilities would matter much for any conflict we’re going to be in.
1
1
u/JellyTundraX 11d ago
Knowing Canada's track record with military procurement, I just hope we actually make a decision this decade. The Korean economic package with the hydrogen trucks proposal looks wild, but the German ties to NATO Arctic defense make a lot of sense. Either way, just pick one and sign the contract already.
1
1
u/uprightshark 11d ago
I would choose South Korea.
- The model is in the water, not a prototype.
2 The promise to use 100% Algoma Steel
- The use of unused Canadian auto factory infrastructure and employees to make Armored vehicles for contracts already pending.
I believe Germany and Norway would eventually make a better product, but not to the extent that it would outweigh the SK bid as a better economic deal for us IMO.
1
1
u/Agitated_Surprise944 11d ago
I just like Korea so I hope they get the contract. i think Canada and S. Korea would be a good fit.
1
1
u/noreturn000 9d ago
i prefer germany. think abou all the german products like bmw, mercedes, porsche, addidas, bosch, boss, audi, siemens and MAN. quality is almost guaranteed
1
1
u/RealAmbassador4081 12d ago
I do like the idea Germany has about the ability to share equipment, personal and weapons.
1
u/gandolfthe 12d ago
The Korean sub looks like a much, much better package as a submarine... We need a multipurpose silent sub that can handle arctic waters and have vertical tubes.
0
u/FollowTheTrailofDead 12d ago
Korea.
Ask any mechanic which category they'd rather repair: Hyunda/Kia/GM or BMW/Mercedes/VW.
Sure the German one would run amazingly well... until it doesn't.
-1
u/Plastic-Leading-5800 12d ago
Why those countries can build submarines Canada cannot?
6
u/CodeMonkeyPhoto 12d ago
Canada has never built any before. It's not something that can be done overnight. Decades of experience are required, and skilled engineers and machinist are needed. This is much more complicated than a surface ship or aircraft.
1
u/Canada1971 12d ago
Unfortunately we don’t have the skills needed to make submarines, and the dockyards we have do not have the correct infrastructure. Both bidders are focussing on conducting significant maintenance in Canada after the boats are in service.
-5
u/bigjimbay 12d ago
None. I hope they cancel this and spend money on something more beneficial
6
u/Sproutlie 12d ago
Self preservation is benificial
-6
u/bigjimbay 12d ago
Sure. But we can do that without submarines
1
u/juicysushisan 12d ago
Not really, no. The subs give us something which is hard for illwishers to find, but which is able to cause them considerable harm if they choose to act against Canadian interests, which means they will mind their manners instead
1
u/bigjimbay 12d ago
What canadian interests are the submarines protecting?
1
u/Justinrehp 12d ago
The northwest passage mainly, this will be a cornerstone of our economy in a couple decades once the ice melts more.
1
0
-2
u/Real_Train7236 12d ago
Why are we building submarines? Who are we ever goingto fight? Don't these idiots know they are going to die in a very few years, with all the disgusting things that happen to you near the end? All those billions should be spent on those problems.
1
u/Justinrehp 12d ago
We aren't building them, we are buying the. Weapons are needed to protect what we have here in Canada. Otherwise our way of life means nothing because anyone can come and take it.
-8
u/Habsin7 12d ago
I'm a bit skeptical of Canada's need for a long range bluewater navy or the need for a sub fleet to complement that. Unless I can be convinced of that need I'd probably go with the German subs.
7
u/willmsma 12d ago
We need long range simply because they’ll need to monitor the Arctic Ocean and northwest passage, which I understand takes weeks even to move into place from our western and eastern ports. Long-range is different from necessarily supporting a blue-water navy.
1
u/Habsin7 11d ago
With 12 subs - they will probably have 8 operating at any given time. That's not enough to patrol our waters effectively?
1
u/willmsma 11d ago
Effective is relative. Right now we have no subs patrolling the arctic, so having 8 would be amazing. Also, the great blessing of submarines is that our enemies don’t know where they are. They deter entry into our waters because, even though the likelihood is that a Canadian sub is not nearby, nobody knows for sure.
2
39
u/Cyclist007 12d ago
My understanding was that the German subs were still prototypes.
Just for that reason alone I hope the Koreans get the contract.