• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Replacing the Subs

question:

What weapons would they carry? Compatible with US weapons?
It uses 21 inch torpedo tubes and a domestic torpedo, the Tiger Shark, so we would need to have the Mark 48 fire control system installed during construction.

The ballistic missile is the Hyunmoo 4-4, which is apparently descended from the Nike Hercules missile. I can't find any information if it's compatible with other missiles, like the Tomahawk.
 
Supposedly the Hyunmoo 4-4 is derived from the Hyunmoo 2B. That missile shares a number of characteristics with the Russia Iskander and some similar features to the US ATACMS and Israeli LORA.

I am actually rather skeptical if the GoC would consider the KS III submarines SLBM Hyunmoo 4-4 a positive capability. The fact that we are considering Tomahawks for CSC might mean the GoC would be open to the capability but I am not confident.

Not sure how the RCN would view it either to be honest.
 
Supposedly the Hyunmoo 4-4 is derived from the Hyunmoo 2B. That missile shares a number of characteristics with the Russia Iskander and some similar features to the US ATACMS and Israeli LORA.

I am actually rather skeptical if the GoC would consider the KS III submarines SLBM Hyunmoo 4-4 a positive capability. The fact that we are considering Tomahawks for CSC might mean the GoC would be open to the capability but I am not confident.

Not sure how the RCN would view it either to be honest.

It uses 21 inch torpedo tubes and a domestic torpedo, the Tiger Shark, so we would need to have the Mark 48 fire control system installed during construction.

The ballistic missile is the Hyunmoo 4-4, which is apparently descended from the Nike Hercules missile. I can't find any information if it's compatible with other missiles, like the Tomahawk.

The CRCN stated in an interview that we would adapt to the sub, not try to adapt the sub to us. So I suspect that we will start using whatever weapons systems the boat comes with in current service.
 
I think that’s a pragmatic approach to weapons like torpedoes and similar.
I would question whether a sub that comes with SLBMs would be politically supported by the GoC. SLBM is a very different capability set for a Canadian submarine.


Interestingly though South Korea has offered KS III for export minus the SLBM so it’s not a showstopper.
 
I think that’s a pragmatic approach to weapons like torpedoes and similar.
I would question whether a sub that comes with SLBMs would be politically supported by the GoC. SLBM is a very different capability set for a Canadian submarine.


Interestingly though South Korea has offered KS III for export minus the SLBM so it’s not a showstopper.
would it not also depend upon whether it is red or blue that is reigning in OW at the time the contract is signed? The cons might be a little more aggressive than a party which is ruled partially by the NDP.
 
I think that’s a pragmatic approach to weapons like torpedoes and similar.
I would question whether a sub that comes with SLBMs would be politically supported by the GoC. SLBM is a very different capability set for a Canadian submarine.
The KS-III second batch can also carry the Hyunmoo-3D*, a variant of the older ]Hyunmoo-3A/B/C** land attack cruise missile. So its possible that the GoC would be more agreeable for a SLCM than a SLBM.

And a little research indicates that the Hyunmoo missile is approximately 6 M in length and 0.53-0.6 M in diameter. The Tomahawk cruise missile for comparison is 5.56 M in length (6.25 with booster) and 0.52 M in diameter. So similar in size.

* Sometimes called the Chonryong cruise missile.
** Not to be confused with the Hyunmoo-4 Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile system.

As for torpedoes, both the MK-48 and Tiger Shark are .533 MM in diameter, however, the Mk-48 is 5.79 M in length, while the Tiger Shark is 6.5 M in length. Not an expert so I have no idea if you could launch a MK-48 from a the longer torpedo tubes?

Interestingly though South Korea has offered KS III for export minus the SLBM so it’s not a showstopper.
The South Koreans offer to two export versions of the KS-III, the DSME-2000 2000 tons) and the larger DSME-3000 (3000 tons). The DSME-3000 is the same size as the KS-III Batch submarines and the omission of the VLS system could allow the installation of extra batteries giving the DSME-3000 increased endurance.
 
I think that’s a pragmatic approach to weapons like torpedoes and similar.
I would question whether a sub that comes with SLBMs would be politically supported by the GoC. SLBM is a very different capability set for a Canadian submarine.


Interestingly though South Korea has offered KS III for export minus the SLBM so it’s not a showstopper.
Based on what? Fear of peacenicks? Irrationally we thought Destroyers were to violent of a name and the gov't would shy away. Cruise missile talk for the Destroyers hasn't cause a single eyelash to bat. Armed drones for the airforce? Not a problem.

I think we need to stop projecting Boomer 1990 peacekeeping sensibilities onto the public and government. Something changed in Afghanistan and is certainly very different since Ukraine. The public understands these technologies better and expects the CAF will have some of them.

SLBM are not going to be a show stopper. Unless they cost money, and then that's where the real showstopper is. Its not political support (which infers public resistance) its financial support for a cash strapped CAF.

Now if there is another capability that is a better option like more batteries then that is something that might be more attractive as well.
 
The SLBM's at issue here are not nuclear tipped, they are land attack short to medium range ballistic missiles. They would be a nice complement to the Tomahawks contemplated for the River's.
 

South Korea’s Hanwha Ocean dismisses size criticisms over Polish Orka submarine offer


I found this bit of interest for us - "If selected, Hanwha could construct and deliver a first SKK-III to Poland in six years from contract award, said Kim. The company is also proposing transfer of technology to local industry for Orka and signed a cooperation agreement with Poland’s WB Group on Tuesday for in-country maintenance, repair and overhaul provision."

Warsaw launched Orka’s preliminary market consultation phase last year, with deadline for industry submissions ending in June, he added.

“Unfortunately that’s where [the acquisition] is stuck at right now, and we hope that the government will push forward and release the shortlist [of downselected shipyards] soon,” noted Kim.

Hanwha has not been told of a “specific” schedule for the shortlist decision to take place, added Jeong.


The timing of this 'delay' or 'pause' on the Polish side is what I find interesting - 10 days after the end of June is when the CBC broke that we were in the market for up to 12 new submarines. Are the Poles and us working out an mutual agreement on jointly announcing that we are going in together on the purchase of the KSS-III?

 
Apparently the Russians are not big fans of Canada's plan for subs. Sounds like a good reason to proceed.

And the horse they rode in on.

Edit: Actually I have nothing against their horses. It's the saying.....ya know?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top