- Reaction score
- 5,456
- Points
- 1,040
They carry Korean ballistic missiles, no compatability with US stuff that I'm aware of.
Replacing the Subs
- Thread starter Spencer100
- Start date
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 14,320
- Points
- 1,140
Torpedos?
- Reaction score
- 5,456
- Points
- 1,040
Korean Torps as well, but their torps are quite good. All Torps decended from NATO are generally the same diameter (533mm IIRC), but that doesn't mean Fire control or length are compatable.
Related news, from the German-Norwegian Type 212CD program:
www.navalnews.com
Note the first sub to Norway by 2029, so this program may be further along than we thought.
German-Norwegian Type 212CD submarine programme achieves CDR milestone - Naval News
The Norwegian government announced the completion of the Critical Design Review (CDR) of the German-Norwegian Type 212CD submarine program
www.navalnews.com
Note the first sub to Norway by 2029, so this program may be further along than we thought.
Maxman1
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,411
- Points
- 1,160
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.
Fabius
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,011
- Points
- 810
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 5,838
- Points
- 1,140
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.
Fabius
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,011
- Points
- 810
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 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.
Retired AF Guy
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 814
- Points
- 1,160
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?
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.
- Reaction score
- 5,456
- Points
- 1,040
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.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,888
- Points
- 1,010
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.
- Reaction score
- 5,456
- Points
- 1,040
I agree. Much faster to time to target as well.
Similar threads
