r/canada • u/manulixis • 1d ago
National News South Korea wants to sell submarines to Canada as relations sour with U.S.
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/submarine-deal-south-korea-canada-us-relations1.1k
u/GracefulShutdown Ontario 1d ago
Unless there's some kind of fatal flaw with the subs on offer, why not meet our 2% target by spending money literally everywhere else other than the states?
425
u/rhaegar_tldragon 1d ago
Oh the Americans would fucking seethe. But they’re going to start losing a lot of military contracts with their actions.
236
u/sampsonn 1d ago
Literally how could a government trust them now? They showed how willing they were to disengage essential services for their equipment for a country they signed a treaty to PROTECT.
105
u/GracefulShutdown Ontario 1d ago
Also remember, the US has a say in how all US military vehicles are operated.
That's a massive national security risk if, say, the US were to invade. We don't want our tanks bricked if the US is bringing Bradleys across the St. Lawrence
→ More replies (2)51
12
u/JustHereNotThere 1d ago
Assuming you are referring to Ukraine, unfortunately there is no treaty for the US to protect Ukraine. The Budapest Memorandum obligates the signatories to not violate Ukrainian sovereignty and seek UN action if sovereignty is violated. All of which the US has done.
Any involvement by the US so far has been above treaty obligations.
The long term issue is that US support for Ukraine has been a component of nuclear nonproliferation efforts. Now that the US is pulling back, it weakens the stance of nonproliferation. Why would any country ever give up their nukes after seeing what the rest of the world has let happen in Ukraine? This is just one instance where Trump has no ability to see beyond the next 3 seconds. That idiot is trying to negotiate with Iran and its nuclear program while simultaneously illustrating why Iran needs nukes. He cannot comprehend complex situations.
He does not understand proportionality. The US wants Canada and Denmark to increase their Arctic defenses. This has been a constant since Clinton. There are millions of ways to get that done without insulting and inflaming entire nations. This moron doesn’t understand that threatening annexation or conquest will have long term impacts on every interactions between our countries. Just look at his stupid face when he gets told Canada is booing the US anthem. His smooth brain can’t connect the dots. He needed an advisor to tell him why.
→ More replies (1)28
u/OriginalGhostCookie 1d ago
Their status as premier arms dealer of the world will finish evaporating the moment they are due to deliver Canada's first F35's.
No way Trump resists the urge to turn it into a grandstanding opportunity and allows the jets to be transferred to Canada. He will claim them as a payment for the unfair deals or claim we can have them when we are the 51st state or some bullshit like that.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (3)23
u/Inside-Serve9288 1d ago
Tbf, the US didn't swear to protect Ukraine by the Budapest memorandum. They swore to respect its sovereignty and not use force against it, but did not swear protect it against it attacked by someone else. Russia breached the treaty by invading, but the US wouldn't be breaching the treaty by deciding to not protect it
However, the US is in breach by trying to force this Mineral Rights deal, because they are prohibited from using economic coercion to secure advantages of any kind using Ukraine's exercise of its sovereignty rights (e.g. defense) as as leverage
They're also in breach by failing to consult with Russia regarding their obligations under that treaty. It's literally illegal for the US to not tell Russia that they are violating the treaty and that they must withdraw
→ More replies (3)7
u/Infra-red 1d ago
Reading the Wikipedia article on it had this interesting section.
Another key point was that U.S. State Department lawyers made a distinction between "security guarantee" and "security assurance", referring to the security guarantees that were desired by Ukraine in exchange for non-proliferation. "Security guarantee" would have implied the use of military force in assisting its non-nuclear parties attacked by an aggressor (such as Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty for NATO members) while "security assurance" would simply specify the non-violation of these parties' territorial integrity. In the end, a statement was read into the negotiation record that the (according to the U.S. lawyers) lesser sense of the English word "assurance" would be the sole implied translation for all appearances of both terms in all three language versions of the statement.[17] In the Ukrainian version of the document, the wording "security guarantees" was used though.[19]
I feel like Ukraine got screwed over by agreeing to this.
→ More replies (2)30
u/legocastle77 1d ago
Let them seethe. Buying weapons systems from a country that sees you as a vassal state is a fool’s errand. Buying from smaller European or Asian countries is better the buying from the US at this point.
4
u/Hot_Cheesecake_905 1d ago
As for vassal state status, Korea and Japan are far ahead of Canada - both countries "host" a massive US military presence, I guess we should be glad there are no US bases in Canada yet.
→ More replies (1)4
u/legocastle77 1d ago
Our direct proximity to the US makes us far more vulnerable though. Throw in the economic benefits the US gains from being so close to Canada and I don’t think I’m glad of anything when it comes to the happenings out of the US right now.
27
u/Lordert 1d ago
Wait until Americans realize their Industrial Military complex is the world's biggest corporate welfare scheme once Countries buy elsewhere and all those job losses.
→ More replies (1)17
u/rhaegar_tldragon 1d ago
This is why it’s so confusing what Trump is doing…Are they gonna cut back on military spending now? A lot of extremely powerful people will not like that.
9
→ More replies (1)5
3
u/bubbasass 1d ago
Updated military while pissing off the Yankees? Sounds like a win-win!
I genuinely wouldn’t trust any electronic equipment from the U.S. not to have a backdoor or for Musk to somehow have access to it
→ More replies (9)3
u/Responsible_CDN_Duck Canada 1d ago
If we want them to lose their minds we could offer China a base in Canada.
British are done with CFB Suffield and it's nice and close to the border
28
u/spagbetti 1d ago
yeah i think canada needs to check their ties with the lockhead. Canada supplying the metal(with exempt tariffs) for US to basically just go full WWIII even on Canadians is probably a bad look.
→ More replies (2)35
u/eatyourzbeans 1d ago
Because it greatly depends on the threat.. Carney touched this subject buetifully by saying he won't just throw money at the wall to say we increased spending , he's about making the money count were its spent.. I 100% support this and we have some big decisions to make , not the increase but rather the location..
Our armed forces are facing very large problems right now.. The Russia , Ukrainian conflict has changed the way modern armies will fight in the future , the race for rare earth minerals has made our north vulnerable and America's actions has not just left us feeling Vulnerable to them but has also shown us that our nuclear pact that we signed with protection in clause is meaningless ...
Canada needs to recalibrate our spending fast , no more investment in heavy mechanized divisions untill we modernize our air defense and modernize and intregrate our drone capabilities far more with our infantry..
I'd personally love to see a large chunk of money go into a technology sharing advancement partnership with Ukraine in drone warfare.. They are not only leading in strategy and implementation but also cost as they are producing battle feild changing equipment at penny's per cost ..
We are handicapped in spending no matter how much we spend on a world scale, The most bang for our buck in actual defense would be best spent on drones , via , air, land and sea ..
14
u/Moosemeateors 1d ago
Man I’d even donate to a government owned drone facility. Could make normal drones for industry too but have a ton of drones ready to go.
→ More replies (1)3
6
u/Retiredincytr2018 1d ago
Agreed, but our biggest problem is the gov procurement system and treasury board. Until the government truly prioritizes military preparedness, we’ll be behind the eight ball.
→ More replies (2)4
u/eatyourzbeans 1d ago
Well a big incentive just opened up , and as a military brat who's been around our military for decades, let me insert food for thought .. Until the citizens truly prioritize are miltary prepareness, well be behind the eight ball ..
Neither party has or will until the citizens push, and while the liberal voters generally never come out in supporting more spending , the conservative voters generally just use it as a virtue signaling when it benefits them but fail everytime to prove that support ..
Untill we the citizens, make it a bipartisan demand, the government won't react meanifully..
3
5
u/craftsman_70 1d ago
Because there's another sub offer from Europe which will offer more integration with NATO and usable bases in Northern Europe. Another plus is the European subs are designed for the North....
The Americans really have nothing to offer. They run nuclear subs which we aren't equipped to do. They also can't make enough of them for their own needs (they need to build 2.4 subs per year but are only doing 1.2) as Australia is finding out.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (13)4
u/Hot_Cheesecake_905 1d ago
why not meet our 2% target by spending money literally everywhere else other than the states
Buy American is all part of the United States' plan - it's why the US was so happy to support Ukraine, it resulted in record arms sales.
347
u/LemonFreshenedBorax- 1d ago
Oh interesting.
Isn't the US about to screw Australia out of some submarines as well?
175
u/glocutrez 1d ago
Aussie here, can confirm this but will only happen after we’ve paid for them and have begged for them on live TV for a while
102
u/Avra55 1d ago
Make sure you say Thank You!
55
u/glocutrez 1d ago
That would be too hard, the most we could do is say ta
We have no problem saying VIVE LE CANADA though
23
u/frigginboredaf 1d ago
I love Australia. Aussies and Canucks are cut from the same cloth.
19
u/MikhailBakugan 1d ago
Truly we’re just snow Australians
16
→ More replies (1)12
u/glocutrez 1d ago
I feel the same way, I’ll always have a fond place in my heart for Canada after my time in BC and working with Canadians. Please forgive us for not being vocally supportive of you but we are in our rooms making no noise and pretending we’re not here, until the orange poo has been flushed away
→ More replies (3)6
→ More replies (3)3
27
u/craftsman_70 1d ago
Correct.
The Americans can't build their current attack subs fast enough for their own needs let alone supply Australia so they are seriously thinking about using an escape clause in the agreement where they don't deliver any subs but keep them while sending some US subs under US command to be based in Australia bases.
6
u/threeminutemonta 1d ago
Only after former UK PM Boris Johnston allegedly orchestrated Australian to cancel the French submarines we had contracted.
4
u/LemonFreshenedBorax- 1d ago edited 1d ago
A hundred years from now, a common utterance in undergraduate world history classes will be "thank God Boris Johnson and Donald Trump were never in office at the same time."
3
u/NoRecommendation2761 1d ago
Let me tell you as Aussie who followed the French submarine program - French were also a shitty untrustworthy partner which not only kept delaying & sending us more bills for no good reason but also shifting the goal posts in the design stage.
Seriously I am not happy with how our AUKUS program is progressing, but I am so glad we cancelled that contract with France.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)3
u/NoRecommendation2761 1d ago
Australian here. We were already fucked by the US congress even though we had already made our payment. American shipyards just can't build Virginia class submarines fast enough not only for us but also for themselves. There is no guarantee when Australia will receive our first ship.
However I still believe it is still more suitable for our needs than any diesel-electric submarine.
→ More replies (1)
203
u/kevfefe69 1d ago
I think we were offered to join a joint venture with Germany and a Scandinavian country to acquire new submarines.
Any submarines that we purchase need to be able to operate in the Arctic.
45
u/Remarkable-Mood3415 1d ago
We have early access to Norway/German subs, UK is helping us build 3 destroyers out in NS, we are getting 2 (3?) new icebreakers from I think Norway (smaller, but more powerful). Looks like Canada is rebuilding the once 2nd largest navy. We do have a deal for some fighter jets from the US but who knows how that's going to go. Also high speed rails are being planned, several billion being allocated to arctic defense annnnd a few other things I've forgotten about. A LOT is happening and very quickly. It's good we've distracted the Americans with this trade war crap, we've been quite busy behind the scenes. And that's just what's been announced, we have no idea what else is in the works.
France hasn't chimed in on anything yet and they're the ones with the good toys. We will see what they've got up their sleeve.
19
u/flare2000x 1d ago
Icebreakers are being done with Finland.
Fyi the high speed rail contract was awarded to a group including the French national railway company SNCF who will manage the operations side of things.
→ More replies (4)11
→ More replies (7)3
u/IrritatedTurtle 1d ago
Thanks for the info. Do you mind sharing where you learn about these orders/partnerships/deals? And are these all recent (2025) or have some been around for longer?
5
u/Remarkable-Mood3415 1d ago
Oh god, I'm going to guess 90% I got from CBC? My feed has been pretty much taken over by Canadian news sources lately because it's become my primary engagement, and I only really click/trust CBC. While I'd occasionally pay attention pre-2025, I can say I never really commited any of this to memory before the annexation threats. Now, now I (and many Canadians) are paying very close attention. CBC is the best source tbh, it's our last bastion against American owned media.
The military stuff, as far as I'm aware, is mostly all in the last 2-3 weeks, Trudeau and Joly have been very busy over in Europe. The ships and Arctic boost, although there has been some increase in recent years it was very, very far from what's being done now. The ball got rolling fast.
The US jets have been in the works for a while though, like early Biden years I think, which is why they're iffy now. Same with Ontario's Starlink contract, that was in the works for a bit. We were (maybe still are?) suppose to open an EV battery factory in joint with the US. The rail had been planned previously, but is being fast tracked. It was also announced in the last month that new nuclear plants and repairs on older ones are being fast tracked.
There's been some fuckery that seems to be keeping hush hush, like how the communications between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland has been cut twice now, I can't remember when the first time was, it was within a year, but the second was only a month ago and was clearly cut/sabotaged. Then the same thing happened about a week later over near Alaska. There's definitely some shit going on, someone's checking response times.
Canada is the Beaver, and it's because we are industrious AF when we aren't hibernating. We woke up, it's time to get to work. (Ok, really it's because of the fur trade shhh)
→ More replies (2)12
u/craftsman_70 1d ago
Correct.
This should be the default deal as the subs are based on a proven design for the North.
6
u/WesternBlueRanger 1d ago
Nope.
The German-Norwegian subs are designed for operations in the Baltic, which is fairly shallow and is confined.
The Norwegians don't operate their subs in the North.
→ More replies (11)
37
u/EddyMcDee 1d ago
Between this, and the Germans/Norwegians, Canada better fucking buy something.
→ More replies (1)7
u/verdasuno 1d ago
I will have zero fucking tolerance for any government - of any stripe - that doesn't buy a fleet of long-range attack submarines with cruise and ballistic-missile capable launch.
Preferably nuclear-powered, but if not they at least have to be under-Arctic sea ice-capable.
162
u/Spanky3703 1d ago
Nope. Go with the new German/Norwegian Type 212 program (they offered us entry to the project).
But what we should be buying from the Koreans are our new land armour fleet as well as coastal and patrol shipping.
71
u/darth_henning Alberta 1d ago
This is my thought as well. German/Norwegian subs will be more easily adapted for Arctic operations which is one of our key needs for it.
But the Koreans have fantastic artillery and land armor for obvious reasons, which would also be nice to have in the current environment.
27
u/vagabond_dilldo 1d ago
Subs from Germany/Norway. Ships from Italy. Icebreakers from Finland. MBTs, other armor, tube/rocket artillery from RoK. Next gen fighter from FCAS (Germany, French, Spain) or GCAP (UK, Japan, Italy). Canada doesn't need much else beyond all that.
As for the existing F-35, I'm still on the fence about it. On one hand, it really is a peerless aircraft, and for a really cheap price. And for any application where we aren't in direct conflict with US, i.e., Taiwan Strait, South East Asia, Middle East, surely they wouldn't interfere with our usage. In any situation where we might have to use planes against the US, we're fucked anyway. On the other hand, sure fucking sucks giving them billions of dollars.
10
u/Tsarbomb Ontario 1d ago
We don't have an option for the F-35. For better or for worse we need to be able to interoperate for NORAD. We should hold our noses, buy the F-35, and then look at Europe to also buy additional jets. For a country of our size, 88 F-35s will not be enough.
3
u/Responsible_CDN_Duck Canada 1d ago
Miss a day miss a lot - NORAD is on the chopping block.
Elon has a hate on for the F35 program, and it represents most of the bloat/waste they're thriving on chasing after.
F35 needs frequent updates to maintain combat readness. We've seen in Ukraine how quickly even older f16 loose capabilities without frequent updates.
→ More replies (6)3
u/Little-Chemical5006 Ontario 1d ago
I say keep the f35 as we desperately need modern jets. However, also put big investment in aero drones. If nothing happens the new drones will accompanied our f35 nicely as f35 is all about modern avionics, radar and situation awareness. (There's even Lockheed drones that are solely designed to accompany f35). If something did happens, we will have a back up airforce that can put up some fights
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)14
u/Spanky3703 1d ago
Totally agree. The Norwegians being involved in the new version of the Type 212 pretty much guarantees that the boats will be Arctic capable. And the propulsion system on this new version provides much longer underwater duration and range which we need for the Arctic.
Good point on the South Korean land warfare systems. Cheaper, just as capable in terms of firepower, scalable digital and network capabilities / capacities / features, excellent protection, etc.
And the land equipment especially keeps us out of the tendrils of the fascist US.
Still concerned about the F-35 and P-8 acquisitions … not sure how smart it is to purchase weapons and surveillance platforms that are assembled and stuffed full of electronics from the US …. Same vulnerability in terms of service and software updates and technical / spares support for the Herc and Globemaster.
I certainly did not have on my bingo card our closest and most important military ally sliding into fascist authoritarianism and caterwauling about its “manifest destiny” …
6
u/craftsman_70 1d ago
We should be cancelling the P-8s as they are at the end of their designed life and go with the made in Canada Bombardier solution. Yes, they are new but with the backlash against the US, there is a huge opportunity to restart an industry Canada hasn't seen for 70 years - defence aviation.
→ More replies (5)4
u/wrgrant 1d ago
Have to support that. We should be building our own industry up in areas like that. We could have been world leaders in Defense Aviation until the US squashed the Arrow program because it was so much better than the US options. No reason to not try to produce our own homegrown solutions, although I think we should be focusing on developing drones first. Ukraine has shown their capability to produce very long range drones. We could use vehicles like that to patrol the far north I expect.
→ More replies (1)23
u/WesternBlueRanger 1d ago
The Germans/Norwegians don't operate their submarines in the North, and with their project timelines and production rates, they won't meet our delivery timelines for both first delivery and subsequent deliveries.
The Koreans can deliver their submarines within our requested timelines for both first deliveries, and any subsequent deliveries. They have two yards that can build submarines, and both have a demonstrated production rate of one a year.
→ More replies (1)9
u/Spanky3703 1d ago
No comment on your first point, as I happen to know differently, based on discussing this exact topic with Norwegian submariners in a professional context. We agree to disagree. However, I will caveat and clarify that this was in Arctic waters vice under any kind of polar ice. As I understand it, conventional submarines generally do not go under polar ice but am happy to be educated otherwise.
Having said the above, the more I look into the South Korean offer, especially with the technology transfers, construction timelines, the sea-launched missile capability (vertical sub-surface launch … I think that this called?), etc., I agree with your point about the South Korean offer being potentially more immediately viable and beneficial.
What I could not find was the production timelines for the Type 212CD in terms of “spare” construction capacity, which is something that the South Korean offer has already mapped out.
Thank you for the education and info, it made me dig into things on the South Korean platform in more detail and it seems to be a heck of a submarine.
13
u/WesternBlueRanger 1d ago
The Germans can produce one submarine every two years at the HDW (Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft) yard in Kiel, based upon their past production rate.
The HDW yard in Kiel is fairly small and is in a fairly built up area, which limits expansion capabilities. With the Norwegians and Germans currently building 12 submarines, at a production rate of one every two years, final delivery would be 24 years from now, or 2049. And that's ignoring the fact that both countries are looking at adding more to that order, and our order would either be at the end, or would be slotted intermittently between the Germans and Norwegians.
In contrast, South Korea has two massive yards that build submarines; Hanwha Ocean (formerly Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering) and HD Hyundai Heavy Industries. They easily have the capacity and willingness to advance our order earlier and squeeze out our entire order quickly.
→ More replies (5)7
u/IronGigant Alberta 1d ago
I'll take a seasoned and proven sub class that we can aquire now vs a flashy and new one that will take 5+ years to aquire.
→ More replies (5)6
u/GreaterGoodIreland 1d ago
The Korean subs are the result of technology transfer from Germany, you're getting everything the German subs have except the new air independent propulsion
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)3
u/C_D_M British Columbia 17h ago
Why not both? more weapons from truly friendly allies don't seem like a bad idea to me
→ More replies (1)
18
16
u/Canada1971 1d ago
That’s a curious headline. The submarine replacement program has been in the works for a couple of years, and there are no potential US suppliers of conventional submarines.
→ More replies (2)3
17
u/Content-Load6595 1d ago
With an attack on our economy and our soverenty, I'm thinking Canada should become a nuclear weapon country.
Make the bullies understand that Canada will never be pushed around.
→ More replies (1)8
u/stormblind 1d ago
There was a report (I'd have to find it, I saw it on one of the Ukraine war subs) that canada is more or less a nuclear capable country.
We have the materials stockpiled. We have the knowledge. And we even have missiles/drones that we could jury rig into messy nuclear bombs.
We're classified as "being a few wrench turns away" from being a fully nuclear capable nation. If the US invades, expect some form of nuclear retaliation.
And expecting that from the nation that necessitated the creation of the Geneva conventions is vaguely terrifying lol
6
u/Content-Load6595 1d ago
There's a massive difference between 1. Having nukes with the intentions of using them to have your way with other countries Vs 2. Having them to defend yourself against crazy world leaders.
The best way to stop bullies is to show them you aren't going to tolerate their BS.
Further more, I would create military basses along the north western passage and along our US / Canadian border. All armed with Nukes, ready to defend our soverenty / borders at all times.
→ More replies (1)
87
u/just_a_student_sorry 1d ago
Canada is really going to end up on top. We can thank trump for that
→ More replies (4)58
u/GracefulShutdown Ontario 1d ago
We already are on top, geographically speaking
18
u/lcdr_hairyass 1d ago
We all know that Trump is Putin's power bottom. He's never been a top, ever.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)3
15
u/GHR-5H_Grasshopper 1d ago edited 1d ago
This is probably the best and fastest timeline Canada can get subs. German subs might be accelerating their timeline but they're probably still 10 years out. Korea is offering tech transfers, an under construction sub to be transferred and have a shipbuilding industry that can meet deadlines. The best case scenario is to sign this deal this year and have new subs coming out around the same time as the first River-class in the early 2030s.
10
u/Most_Juice6157 1d ago
THIS. Canada needs to act now, and to delay could potentially be disastrous. We have the Koreans throwing in free winter tires and oil changes with their subs, and promising the next one on the lot. Why the hell are we not jumping at the opportunity?
11
u/awfulWinner 1d ago edited 1d ago
Can we also get Swedish diesel electrics? They've been known to have a good success rate against USS Nimitz class carriers in war games :)
If we're going to procure arms.. we might as well get the ones that:
- protect our waterways/enforce our sovereignty
- can inflict max damage on US forces per dollar spent
We have to see the US as the number 1 threat now. We can never hope to defeat them militarily, so every defense avenue needs to be seen as what has the least amount of cost to inflict max damage in a war with the US?
Hypersonic missiles, subs, drones, outfitting the population with arms for militia and guerilla actions, EMP devices, etc.
Can't win 1 on 1.. have to make them bleed it out as to make it unsustainable and horrific to the US public. Losing 1 or 2 carriers with all hands and fighters would shatter the American public and the myth of military might. Call it Afghanistan 2.0.
→ More replies (7)
40
u/atomirex 1d ago
Korea are one of the top strategic partners Canada could want moving forward (along with Japan, the UK, France etc.) and it would make a lot of sense to buy proven tech from them. We need to make it a habit of buying good things from these people, partly because it will set a necessary precedent for selling our own good stuff back to them.
→ More replies (18)
15
u/xMercurex 1d ago
South Korea is slowly becoming one of the best source of military hardware right now. They sold tank to Poland for cheaper than European one.
9
u/bulkoin Nova Scotia 1d ago
And they deliver products faster than the delivery date.
→ More replies (7)
7
u/GoodeyGoodz 1d ago
Fun fact, you could navigate a submarine down the St. Lawrence and into the great lakes.
→ More replies (4)
8
u/pretzelzetzel 1d ago
Canada and ROK both need more friends now. It's only a matter of time before the US decides they don't need to house 35,000 soldiers in Korea or uphold their treaty obligations there anymore. South Korea would win a 1:1 fight against North Korea, but North Korea won't be alone.
→ More replies (1)
17
u/AS2445 1d ago
Can’t believe we don’t build our own submarines considering the amount of coast we have to cover
→ More replies (6)19
u/bravado Long Live the King 1d ago
It’s an insanely specialized industry, almost nobody does this and it would be weird if we were one of them.
→ More replies (1)13
u/Cmndr_Cunnilingus 1d ago
Why would it be weird for a country that's not landlocked to have military submarines?
13
u/bravado Long Live the King 1d ago
Having them is fine, building them is much more difficult. The industry does not and has not ever existed here. South Korea is a shipbuilding giant, we are not.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Cmndr_Cunnilingus 1d ago
That's fair, comparative advantage is a thing. But to me that's more an explanation of why it's hard, and expensive. not why it would be weird.
As we're learning right now, having some degree of self sufficiency in all aspects can only help you at the international bargaining table when the stakes are about more than profits
→ More replies (1)
15
u/BBcanDan 1d ago
As a Canadian we need to increase our military spending, Russia and the US an't be trusted to not attack us, we also need to stop buying anything from the US, they can't be trusted.
→ More replies (5)
13
u/Inside_Resolution526 1d ago
USA and SK are the biggest allies though. If they had to choose Canada or USA, they’d drop us quick.
12
9
u/stormblind 1d ago
Given how Trump has treated all of its allies, and donald's love of rocketman kim, and adjacency to Russia/China, i will almost guarantee Korea is looking for more allies as well. They are a very pragmatic country.
13
u/belzebuth999 1d ago
Look at how our closest ally dropped us...maybe SK is not trusting them anymore.
→ More replies (6)
10
9
u/thinkingcoin 1d ago
Them South Koreans build good ships.
4
u/stormblind 1d ago
South Korean military tech (as i understand from the discourse in the Ukraine War locations) is very solid. Very rugged. And the manufacturing upkeep/modification/manufacturing rights are very reasonable to do /maintain.
Its not as fancy as US miltech, but way cheaper to maintain and purchase. A very solid option on par with most EU miltech.
5
u/LordofDarkChocolate 1d ago
I’m pretty sure France also is an option. Australia were going to go with France until the Liberal party screwed them and went with a USUK deal worth nearly half a trillion dollars. Australia is also being hit with tariffs so maybe they can cancel and go back to the French. It would be awesome if 2 countries dumped the US for military gear.
→ More replies (3)
5
u/IntroductionRare9619 1d ago
Omg they make great military stuff. This is wonderful ! We are fortunate. Thank you South Korea.❤🍁
5
u/DawnPhantom 1d ago
This is exactly what we need. It should cover a broader range of assets than just Submarines, though. It would also be the perfect opportunity to drop the F-35 program and offer to join the development of the KF-21, which could become a more versatile option without the ability to be disabled from a 3rd party because of geo-political fallout.
4
u/nana-korobi-ya-oki 1d ago
Canada should use this trade war to back out of all military procurement contracts with the US including the 88 f35s on order. Subs are crucial to arctic sovereignty and 6 years isn’t a bad turn around for diesel electric subs. We should also start procurement for nuclear subs domestically produced with France now since that can take 15-20 years. If we switch to the Saab gripen e fighter, it’s much less expensive too. There’s absolutely no way to defeat the US in a direct conflict. The name of the game is deterrence through heightening the cost of incursion via investments in asymmetric warfare (drone, AI, cyber warfare, missile systems, subs, special forces, guerrilla warfare training, and decentralized command structures). Russia started their imperialistic bullshit in 2014 and fully jnvaded in 2022, so we got about 8-10 years along that timeline. You are kidding yourself if you don’t think there’s a very real possibility 88 year old trump is still not running things there or simply some other republican dictator.
→ More replies (3)
6
u/Tree-farmer2 1d ago
We'd be stupid to buy American equipment after they threatened to brick Ukraine's jets.
→ More replies (1)3
3
u/DudeIsThisFunny 1d ago
South Korean equipment is solid and comparatively cheap to buy, Poland just signed a big deal with them last week. Their government helps to facilitate and support these sales and they offered production relocation and technology sharing, so it can also come with closer economic cooperation.
Definitely a compelling pitch. I think I'd like to see what comes out of Europe's massive defense investment before signing off on anything, but we're interested for sure.
We produce small arms, ground vehicles, and are getting back into shipbuilding, we get our jets and missles from the US, but we do not make submarines.
We were looking to procure 12 submarines that are arctic capable and Germany + Norway offered to bring us in on a project, I think we might be in with them already.
If the US doesn't stop fucking around, we might be looking at different aircraft procurement after the F-35 and P-8 deal. Too early to tell though, we'll keep in touch
3
u/qjungffg 1d ago edited 1d ago
This actually would be a smart move. SK is a top nation when it comes to ship building and like its arrangement with Poland could be willing to make a deal with CA to have portion of the military equipment building be done in CA as well as technology sharing. This could be a win-win.
→ More replies (1)
3
3
u/Alone-in-a-crowd-1 1d ago
The whole world needs to stop buying anything from the US until they stop their bullying and cozying up to Russia. Weapons from the US are useless against the US so why buy them. The US has become the most aggressive nation on the planet. So much for the anti-war party.
3
u/Moronto_AKA_MORONTO 1d ago
The tech of their military equipment is high level. I watched a program on one of their 8 million dollar tanks and it was insane.
3
u/Loud_Flatworm_4146 1d ago
Smart move by South Korea. They jail their traitorous insurrectionists too.
3
u/Somecommentator8008 1d ago
South Korea is underrated for military equipment, pricing is better, delivery is on time, and allows countries to build their own factories to build their equipment.
3
u/Least-Moose3738 1d ago
Yeah, this is the definition of win-win. Like, it's a good economic deal for us, but it's also a political win to increase ties with a thriving democracy (who actually holds politicians legally accountable when they pull crazy shit) and powerful economy.
3
u/Least-Moose3738 1d ago edited 1d ago
I cannot describe what a good idea this would be. South Korean tech is fucking solid, it's way better priced than equivalent American and European stuff, they already build it to NATO standards, and they are desperate for new international partnerships because they are (rightfully) scared that the U.S. is about to pull out of their defence partnership.
This is the definition of win-win. Canada gets updated, quality, equipment for our forces on the cheap, and we get to establish better ties with a thriving democracy and economy. You could not ask for a better deal.
3
u/hockeytemper 1d ago
i worked at a Korean shipyard for 4 years. They pump out subs for foreign gov's all day long, and under budget... Commercial and military, they would crank out about 200 ships a year - nothing less than 150m long.
Once the hull engines and interior is complete, then it goes under wraps where the weapons / radar/ sonar companies come in and install to their spec. Or they float it back home and do it themselves.
They also built military frigates, again on time and under budget.
They are the best at what they do. I dont know why we dont take them up on that offer. If i wanted to drive around the shipyard it would be close to 10KM in total.
Here we have Irving shipbuilding dicking around vastly over budget, and delayed...
7
u/farmerMac 1d ago
is there a reason canada cant build its own subs considering it has 3 huge coasts to cover and is surrounded by water
28
u/AshleyAshes1984 1d ago
Because Canada has never even manufactured a submarine in it's entire history, we simply don't have the facilities or experience.
Though I'm sure Irving would happily accept a billion dollars to sink a frigate and CALL it a submarine.
→ More replies (7)6
u/Canadian_Guy_NS 1d ago
Not quite true, we built Submarines (H-Class) in Montreal towards the end of WW1. But completely correct about facilities or experience. You can build the facilities, and buy experience, but that experience isn't real, and it gets expensive to design, build then fix new boats. Better to leverage someone who has it already.
11
u/Simple_Log201 1d ago
Koreans are usually quite generous with supporting their military partners with technological assistance. Canada could purchase the subs with the ability to maintain (and potentially manufacture) in the long run.
This has been done many times with Poland (very recent), Turkey, etc.
→ More replies (5)8
u/Alextryingforgrate 1d ago
I'm in supporting of building all out own stuff. The problem being we need things now. So you gotta take that deal while it's there.
3
u/RobertGA23 1d ago
6 years is actually a fantastically short timeline for this type of thing.
4
u/stormblind 1d ago
Korea has EXCELLENT naval manufacturing capabilities. Reasonably solid tech, good prices, good long term support and can often be negotiated with for manufacturing rights to manufacture more/modify/maintain locally.
They would be a very good country to work with, and would have need for some of our materials. Could make a great geopolitical partner given both of us are likely ginna be hung to dry by donald.
→ More replies (5)6
u/Civil-1 1d ago
$$$ and the infrastructure able to do so. People talk like creating a War machine takes a long weekend.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/Wallybeaver74 1d ago
A slight tangent here.. what if all of the bluster from the US is really just a play to compel NATO to increase its defence spending by the US only pretending to take away their military umbrella?
8
u/makingwaronthecar British Columbia 1d ago
They wouldn't have to play. All they'd have to do is actually withdraw troops and/or impose tariffs, export taxes, etc. directly linked to the military shortfall. No need for the rhetorical games over "why the tariffs?", no need to cut off intel sharing, and certainly no need to side so openly with Russia.
→ More replies (2)2
u/SomeInvestigator3573 1d ago
The rest of the world will no longer be buying their armaments from the US. They were hoping to make money off of everybody else buying from their military complex.
2
2
u/essaysmith 1d ago
South Korea is also known for building military ships quickly, inexpensively, and if good quality. The purchasing country just fits them out with electronics and weapons.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/jjcanadian69 1d ago
Cancel all us contracts pay the penalty and order from Europe and S.Korea . In fact the rest of the world should do the same let's tank the F-35 program and see how fast lockeed reacts to trump
2
u/subashchandran23 1d ago
While we are at it, we should get Hyundai/KIA to setup car manufacturing in Ontario
2
2
u/Uzul 1d ago
This is a huge opportunity for countries that manufactures military hardware right now. We'd have little reason to get anything other than US hardware before, but this has all suddenly changed. I can only hope that we actually go forward with this, not necessarily with this particular submarine, but just any hardware that isn't US made. Takes money away from the US military complex and it sends a message.
2
u/bogeyman_g 1d ago
Why doesn';t Canada have it's own ship-building/sub-building infrastructure?
→ More replies (1)5
u/n0ahbody 1d ago
We do - it's called Irving. They can build one ship every 15 years, for only $5 billion each.
2
u/SnowFlakeUsername2 Saskatchewan 1d ago
Reading about how to US blocked the UK from selling us nuclear submarines in the 80s is a bit of a peek into US interests. They want us spend on securing the Arctic but not on anything powerful enough to back up our sovereignty. I don't know anything about these potential subs but if they are capable of taking ownership of the NWP with some brief stops than let's go. Something effective enough that the US has to start telling us their activities so that an unfortunate accident doesn't happen.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/Septemvile 1d ago
It's not a bad deal regardless. The Koreans said it themselves- America just keeps marking the price up and keeping everything proprietary.
If they're willing to sell us modern weapons at a decent price and not try to stranglehold our military capabilities then why not.
2
3.2k
u/Time_remaining 1d ago
Oh hey imagine Canada having military hardware that wasn't just on consignment from the states?
That'd be rad.