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.
“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
Tell that to Ukraine.
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?
Nuke east of the Urals and hope the clouds drift to North Korea.
Why are all you comments hopelessly misconstrued?
If they had nukes, there would have been no invasion.
And if Russia said “fuck it” and called their bluff, what should Ukraine do?
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.
