By Blair Shaw, May 16, 2024
Just received this news item today [May 14] about the possibility of an offer from Germany and Norway for Canada to join the type 212CD program. In my view it’s a good option as the 212CD is much larger than its predecessor the 212A but while it is larger it has the tried and trusted evolved technology the 212A has. They are currently starting to build these boats with both Germany and Norway going for six each.
I believe these would be a great off the shelf asset to the RCN that could indeed perform limited under ice operations in the Arctic as we know the Arctic is a key goal of the RCN and these certainly would help achieve that. It is early stages and this was an approach by Germany and Norway so much more to be done in the coming months but it would be interesting to hear others views on this on the forum
Link
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/05/canada-weighing-international-collaboration-on-future-subs
7 thoughts on “An approach from Germany and Norway for the Type 212CD submarine ”
While this could be a politically convenient way to increase our NATO GDP contribution, is the Type 212CD what we want? From talking to members of the submariner community, the Korean KSIII is heavily favoured. We want 6 to 8 boats, however realistically we only have 2.5 crews available so whatever we get we need to generate trained crews and that’s a large point. Possibly in a consortium and with Germany and Norway asking for an alliance on Arctic co-operation we could leverage that to source trained submariners to augment our crews. Whatever we get we still need to canadianize it to take advantage of the weapon systems we already have and optimise it for warm weather and Arctic conditions. Another consideration is the replacement project is not funded and the RCN, like DND, is cutting back on deployments and budgets.
The Type 212 family, in which the CD is the next generation, is a fully AIP submarine. These submarines, their equipment and systems have all had many years of testing as well as operational deployment experience, the CD version draws on that and expands it.
The Type 212A has done under-ice operations in the Baltic and also in the far north above Norway. The Portuguese Type 214 (derived and larger than 212A) just this month operated under the ice around Greenland & Iceland as part of a NATO exercise, so we know this can be achieved with this family of submarines.
Underwater range is another thing. The 212A has achieved over 3 weeks fully submerged endurance — currently the much larger KSSII & III managed just 20 days. The CD version being much larger than the A would expand on that enormously I would hedge and say it would be nearly double the range.
More importantly for the 212, because of the NATO integration and modular systems Canada would easily switch out systems from the German standard to American systems. Now you might think this over simplistic but this is exactly what Portugal, Greece & Israel have done with their boats. This has meant they can, if they need to, fire the MK48 ADCAP, Harpoon, and Tomahawk although at present I don’t think any of them have yet done the Tomahawk firings.
In contrast, the KSIII is possibly unlikely to be under-ice capable even with its AIP system (there’s never been a test). There are also questions about the build quality being raised by Indonesia right now with regards to them, however they are based from the Type 214 but with different systems.
In the event of a Korean win, we would also likely get the less capable export version of KSIII as the batch III version is a ballistic missile carrier and Canada does not need such capability. The Batch I&II uses K-VLS cells which would be of no real use for Canada either as we couldn’t deploy them with our current stock of weapons meaning the submarine would have to go through a re-design and have all the COB / COG calculations done again resulting in added costs.
We have to also consider how well we could fit the American systems into this boat. We already know it can be done with the German design but the Korean one remains unanswered. I would also wonder how well we can use our MK48’s if at all, or are we just going to go ask them for the hull build and then send them to a Canadian yard for fitting out. We also have to consider if the Americans would be willing to have their equipment fitted in Korean yards given ITAR and also political situations.
The big plus for the Koreans though is that they are likely to be cheaper and faster at delivery than Germany so yes we could achieve a hull probably sooner than what the Germans could offer us. The other plus is the size — the KSIII is larger than the type 212CD by some margin too — this again would also go in their favor.
As Admiral Topshee said, we have an obsession to Canadianize things. We did it with the Victoria class which is why the cost went to eye watering levels and in the end gave us less capability than the boats originally had as purchased from the UK. I do honestly think we need to stop this nonsense approach.
(Yes the Victoria class had more capability than what they do now. As the Upholder they had the ability to fire Harpoon and also Tomahawk firing was built into their systems something that when we “Canadianized” it was deleted so we paid more for less.)
The exact meaning of “collaboration” is important here. Is Canada being offered the chance to influence the operational/technical requirements for the Type 212CD? (What is the delta between the RCN’s core requirements and those of the Royal Norwegian Navy and the Deutsche Marine? Does anyone know?)
What industrial model(s) are being considered, if any? Such considerations may be decisive if the program is to be ‘sold’ to cabinet and the public. Is the best option for Canada to cede construction to the German shipyard while perhaps insisting that Canadian industry be part of the supply chain for all the boats that are built for the three navies? Recall that the more partners are brought in, the thorny question of workshare starts to rear its head.
Many questions. Few answers at this point.
I agree that Canada may want to muscle in on supply chains but as of right now the boats are in build — they are designed and we have already missed that boat. The same for the KSIII these boats are already being built or operational so the level of change is going to be minimal.
The Norwegian navy will be looking more to the Arctic than Korea will be given its geographical location and this likely influenced their choice.
Norway wants a boat that is capable of operating in open ocean, littoral waters and limited under-ice capability in the far north. This isn’t too dissimilar to our own needs in my view.
Germany on the other hand has a focus on the North Sea and Baltic. They tend not to be deep ocean operationally but they build the boats so that there is a margin for this hence we saw them deploy to the Atlantic numerous times. They also don’t really require under-ice operations as they have no interest in the Arctic but they did send one boat up there as a test some years ago, and they have also operated under ice in the Baltic.
I would say that Germany would be more open to putting different equipment into their boats. This isn’t actually uncommon — they have done it for many other navies that have bought their boats plus they have good relations with the USA which allow already their equipment to be fitted so we shouldn’t have any issues in that area.
Is the Type 212 CD expeditionary? I was under the impression Canada wants a sub with longer endurance.
Type 212A has pretty long legs for such a small submarine including underwater endurance.
The CD version is much larger by about 20m in length and 2m width so endurance will be much greater also.
There’s a bigger variant of the 212CD specifically tuned for expedition missions – 212CD-E too, iirc.