• CanadaPlus
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    They’re pushing hard and rising up the arms dealer rankings really fast, for sure.

    It’s worth mentioning they’re two very different boats, without even looking at the at all the perks.

    • 9488fcea02a9@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      I havent followed any of this in detail. I assume neither option is nuclear powered

      Whats the 2026 take on nuclear subs given the cost of oil these days?

      • CanadaPlus
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Generally military equipment ignores fuel economy - in wartime it’s such a tiny expense. To what degree they try to manage it, it’s to extend range. That’s certainly the case for nuclear submarines, which can stay under until they run out of food, and go full steam the whole time.

        But anyway, no, both diesel-electric. IIRC the government wants something soon and that existing sailors can easily learn. That’s also why they’re not considering building in Canada.

        The Hanwha offering is bigger, meaning it’s more livable and could last weeks, and it can launch ballistic missiles vertically. It’s flexible, and could do a bit of the job of other submarines. The European sub is just very, very good at it’s one job of ambushing surface craft (probably much better than the Hanwha boat).

          • CanadaPlus
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 days ago

            Sure, they never stopped.

            South Koreans are good at building lots of things, too. The people actually making the decision won’t have to guess, thankfully; they just go look at the specs.