I can’t vouch for the author at all, but this seems like a nice detailed, technical look at the difference between the two.
TL;DR the 212CD is very good at what in biology would be called “sit and wait predation”. It’s designed to sneak into an ocean floor crevice and hang out there, possibly for for weeks until something comes by, and then attack it. The Hanwha offering, on the other hand, is less superlatively stealthy and maneuverable, but is much more flexible, allowing missile launches and likely having a much longer range.
such pure disgusting treason. Everyone responsible for this analysis needs to be labeled as a traitor or at least fired.
these subs will be expected to deploy far into the North Atlantic with NATO and push across the Pacific to support the Indo-Pacific Strategy
The only mission any Canadian military equipment procurement strategy needs to focus only on defending and attacking the US. If we need a sub, it is to destroy American harbours, and blockade any commerce or oil rigs. All concepts of aiding US domination of the world must be suspended until we at very least get our fair share in the evil pillaging.
It’s great that we are building a large VW engineered battery factory. If we need subs, the German coastal one is the choice, and if it is purchased, the money should be reinvested into a VW EV plant. If we don’t need subs because we don’t understand a need to fight/destroy the US, then we should use the money to make an EV plant.
The guy should get fired from his own blog? Lol.
It’s not just treason to recommend submarines for US force amplification, its treason to recommend expensive boondoggle nuclear subs.
Focusing on only a single country is, simply put, stupid.
Really absurd. Any countries that Canada should invade? There are no other countries than US who will invade us.
Russia would be the other option that Canada needs to keep in mind.
Canada is too far away to have any concerns, but you probably meant that we have a need to believe all US initiated propaganda on Russia, and we have a need to diminish it with submarines. Doing so will have massive rewards trickle down to us.
China, maybe even India if the Khalistan stuff gets out of hand.
Like, the US is by far the main threat directly to us right now, but it’s a big world and a long future.
“Land-attack capability via cruise and/or non-nuclear ballistic missiles”
Canada needs nukes.
Yeah, I was wondering why that was specified. I spent some time looking into if it could fire nukes as well this morning. The verdict is maybe; a lot is secret, but the kind of tubes the KSS-III has are thought to be larger than their ship-borne equivalent.
No one needs nukes
It’s more like “everyone needs no nukes”. It’s just that being one of the nuclear powers is so much easier…
Having a delivery system in case we do decide to go down that path seems reasonable.
I don’t think Canada is in a place where it needs to have a nuclear weapon. There are no threats to Canada (besides Trump, and we know that’s not likely). Canada doesn’t need to lower itself to those levels.
besides Trump, and we know that’s not likely
Do we? Sometimes he TACOs, but sometimes he does exactly what he said he would. And what about whoever the next American autocrat is?
Getting in on one of the European umbrellas would be much better, though. We could even have British or French warheads on a Canadian sub, although I doubt it could launch a Trident as the delivery system.
Trump isn’t trying to take over Canada. He’s focused on making money for himself. If he puts a single foot in Canada the rest of the world is going to shun the states (even more). It’s pointless.
Imo, Canada doesn’t need weapons of mass destruction.
It used to be nobody needs nukes, but…since our most powerful ally is the only nuclear power stupid enough to actually use them we get the deterrent value anyway. As client states we were all (UK, Australia, Canada etc) actively discouraged from developing independent capabilities that would reduce our dependency on the alliance or US arms industry.
If people found the US nuclear umbrella re-assuring then, many don’t now. I am Australian, but submarines and the US alliance are a huge issue here as well.
Canada’s geography is very important strategically to the USA like practically no other place. Canada has less need of nukes than just about anyone. Currently the fate of other US allies feels far less secure. It seems we are all just bits of land to be traded to our enemies by the US administration in return for who knows what? It is a very sad state of affairs.
A nuclear weapon is only as good as the resolve to use it
Tell that to Ukraine.
Ukraine made a deal with America to disarm back when America was a little trustworthy. Things have changed, and I say they’re good to resume nukes.
Ukraine’s independence from USSR, included constitutional neutrality and no nukes. US was not main negotiator.
Close.Ukraine made a deal with Russia to return their nukes in exchange for non-invasion with US and European signatories as guarentors. (Because Russia has never been trustworthy.)
It’s why Nato supplying Ukraine is legitimate. Russia renegged on the non-invasion treaty knowing full well what happens.
Edit: Ukraine has no nuclear building capabilities in the short to medium term. Long term , who knows?
That would solve nothing because they would be condemned for using it.
The point of nukes is to not use them. Countries with nukes negotiate. Countries without nukes get preyed upon.
Your comment is ridiculous considering there is an active war of invasion in Ukraine at present, and they traded their nukes in exchange for a promise not to invade. In retrospect, the nukes would have been better.
And if Russia doesn’t stop? What would you suggest they do?
Why are all your comments hopelessly misconstrued?
If they had nukes, there would have been no invasion.
OK, wait a sec. We all know what MAD entails. However, Ukraine is currenty striking deep into Russia, disrupting refineries and such. Yet Russia hasn’t blown Kiev with a nuke. That’s a legitimate issue to consider. I don’t think most would disagree that nukes reduce the chance of an armed conflict. However it seems like even so, we can’t rely on it to stop it entirely. It’s as if there’s a threshold of threat/intensity below which a hot war can be maintained despite having nuclear capability. If that’s a realistic possibility, we should tackle it. Maybe after we get nukes.
With all that said I do believe we need nukes yesterday especially because we have little ability to maintain a hot war with the US.
Amassing a large ballistic missle arsenal DPRK-style would also work as a deterrent. Perhaps even more effectively since we could fire some of it to prove we ain’t afraid to use it, without “starting a nuclear war.”
And if Russia said “fuck it” and called their bluff, what should Ukraine do?
Nuke east of the Urals and hope the clouds drift to North Korea.
Well, that’s just punishing the disabled child because they sided with a bully! Maybe if those clouds can be directed specifically to Kimmy‘s house…
I agree with the author’s conclusion that the KSS-III is the most sensible choice at this moment. However this does not mean that our navy does not also need 212CDs. Unfortunately it probably, knowing Canadian politics, means we won’t ever get them.
This phrase is rather telling:
since Arctic sovereignty remains popular within Liberal and Conservative circles alike
The fact that “sovereignty” is considered a political question at all, and is merely “popular” and not “essential” is beautifully emblematic of the completely absurd Canadian point of view on the issue. If we are not willing to defend our North, then we frankly do not deserve it, and almost certainly will not have it for much longer.
Yep. If we want to stand on our own to feet, just the ability to attack a ship (eventually) isn’t enough. The ability to roll up anywhere on the same ocean and fire missiles is at least as useful. Buying both might be an option, although that costs.
I think it was meant that the arctic isn’t the only theater that matters. According to the bio Micheal Lalond was in the military, so it’s not a “nobody will ever attack us” thing.
