Replacing the Subs

[lenaitch]

This showed up in my Facebook feed a few minutes ago. "Canada appears to be complicating a demanding military procurement by allowing broader industrial considerations to creep into what should remain a tightly focused submarine requirement. Linking a long term under ice warfare capability to auto sector production pledges risks blurring priorities that are, by nature, highly specialized: crew training pipelines, sustained availability, sovereign in service support, and credible endurance over several decades. Experience suggests that when defence projects are asked to satisfy too many unrelated objectives, the result is often added complexity rather than added value.
Both prospective partners Germany and South Korea already offer mature designs and established industrial cooperation models. A procurement process that emphasizes delivery schedules, training continuity, realistic sustainment, and operational suitability would play to those strengths. Expanding the evaluation to include broader economic offsets may unintentionally shift attention away from these fundamentals. The concern is not that industrial benefits are unimportant, but that they risk overshadowing the core naval requirement, leading to delays, cost growth, and difficult trade offs later. Past experience suggests that keeping the focus narrow and operationally grounded is the best way to ensure submariners ultimately receive a capability that meets their needs on time and in full.

It does muddy the waters, but what country doesn't do something similar. Even in the US, appropriation bills for important things like defence often have local pork barrel spending attached to them.

Hmmm…I think we are getting close to having a winning bidder…

I wonder where the Hyundai plant in the US stands - the one where ICE went in and arrested everybody.

 

[Czech_pivo]

It does muddy the waters, but what country doesn't do something similar. Even in the US, appropriation bills for important things like defence often have local pork barrel spending attached to them.


I wonder where the Hyundai plant in the US stands - the one where ICE went in and arrested everybody.

I’m wonderful about possible synergies between a Hyundai plant in Ontario making hybrids and the existing SK LG battery plant in Windsor which is supposed to supply for Chryslers Windsor plan.

 

[IKnowNothing]

getting jobs for Canadians is nice, the priority for choosing the subs, or any military equipment for that matter, should be the system that most fills Canadian requirements.

Hasn't the Navy already said they're happy with either?

Playing leverage when you have it is good- I just wish it was more in line with taking them up on their broader rearmament offer rather than going off into left field for auto

 

[Lumber]

Hasn't the Navy already said they're happy with either?

Playing leverage when you have it is good- I just wish it was more in line with taking them up on their broader rearmament offer rather than going off into left field for auto

I have a preference, but, wouldn't be upset with either.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Oh dear God we're doing this shit again . Apparently we've found people we haven't managed to piss off yet
It seems to be an almost spinal reflex with Ottawa

 

[Furniture]

Thanks for this. Maybe Germany and Korea should rethink their positions WRT to Canada wanting subs.

IMO this GoC no more wants subs than it wants an election.

Every government in the world looking at spending 60 Billion is looking to make those dollars come back home in some way. We are no different than any other country looking to spend that amount.

Canada wants subs. The RoK and Germany want to sell subs. Canada is doing what all of us do when we walk into a car dealership; Canada is shopping for the best deal between two models that meet our needs.

Last summer I was shopping between a Ranger XLT with the FX4 package, and a Colorado Trail Boss. I went to both dealerships, and looked for the best deal before settling on a Colorado. The Ranger wasn't a bad truck, but the Chev dealer made a better offer for a truck that does the same things.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Last summer I was shopping between a Ranger XLT with the FX4 package, and a Colorado Trail Boss. I went to both dealerships, and looked for the best deal before settling on a Colorado. The Ranger wasn't a bad truck, but the Chev dealer made a better offer for a truck that does the same things.

You should be in procurement.

 

[Halifax Tar]

IMO this GoC no more wants subs than it wants an election.

I mean if the rumblings are the PMMC wants a spring election.

 

[Halifax Tar]

You should be in procurement.

But if he worked in our procurement he would buy a 10'000 '98 Chev Cavaliers and a single axel utility trailer, with no hitch and no spare parts.

And then he would blame the CFSS when nothing can get fixed.

 

[Underway]

While getting jobs for Canadians is nice, the priority for choosing the subs, or any military equipment for that matter, should be the system that most fills Canadian requirements.

So are we going to get the LSVW of submarines? I am only half joking here....

Hasn't the Navy already said they're happy with either?

The RCN is perfectly happy with both submarines. They both meet the minimum capabilities.

AI generated but I checked and there are no AI hallucinations in the data:

Key Selection Factors

• Sustainment (50%): How well the company can maintain and support the fleet long-term, including crew training and parts.
• Platform Capabilities (20%): Meeting specific Navy requirements, such as extended range (7,000+ nautical miles), 21+ days submerged, and launching underwater drones.
• Industrial & Economic Benefits (15%): The extent of Canadian industry involvement in construction and maintenance.
• Interoperability: Ensuring compatibility with U.S. and NATO systems.
• Geopolitical & Strategic Alignment: Considering the long-term defense relationships and global role.

Industrial and Economic Benefits are 15%. But the get the most press. Sustainment is by far the largest number as it should be. That will also include economic benefits as those sections overlap.

I do not agree with random car plants that don't have a business case to be built. Who are they selling too? The domestic market (maybe we import most of our Hyundai)? We have to assume the business case in the near term to the US is bad (and probably the medium term as well). But if it does make sense then sure.

I think that perhaps this car plant thing is a bit of a red herring, where we ask, they look at us with strange eyes and then come back with another idea.

 

[Czech_pivo]

The RCN is perfectly happy with both submarines. They both meet the minimum capabilities.

AI generated but I checked and there are no AI hallucinations in the data:

Key Selection Factors

• Sustainment (50%): How well the company can maintain and support the fleet long-term, including crew training and parts.
• Platform Capabilities (20%): Meeting specific Navy requirements, such as extended range (7,000+ nautical miles), 21+ days submerged, and launching underwater drones.
• Industrial & Economic Benefits (15%): The extent of Canadian industry involvement in construction and maintenance.
• Interoperability: Ensuring compatibility with U.S. and NATO systems.
• Geopolitical & Strategic Alignment: Considering the long-term defense relationships and global role.

Industrial and Economic Benefits are 15%. But the get the most press. Sustainment is by far the largest number as it should be. That will also include economic benefits as those sections overlap.

I do not agree with random car plants that don't have a business case to be built. Who are they selling too? The domestic market (maybe we import most of our Hyundai)? We have to assume the business case in the near term to the US is bad (and probably the medium term as well). But if it does make sense then sure.

I think that perhaps this car plant thing is a bit of a red herring, where we ask, they look at us with strange eyes and then come back with another idea.

Besides timelines for the Germans, my only other open question with them is around ‘sustainment of parts.’ Given what we know around Germany industries inability to provide Leo parts and other land based systems parts, how confident are we that TKS will be able to execute on part availability where other German companies have failed or are failing?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Besides timelines for the Germans, my only other open question with them is around ‘sustainment of parts.’ Given what we know around Germany industries inability to provide Leo parts and other land based systems parts, how confident are we that TKS will be able to execute on part availability where other German companies have failed or are failing?

Not to mention it was not to long ago that all six of the German navy subs were tied to the wall awaiting parts. I think the Germans had a habit of promising lots, delivering less, and not caring because they felt they were the only game in town. Now SK has upended their business model and they are in a bit of a panic (German style).

 

[RangerRay]

I just find it deliciously ironic that we might be buying U-boats 70 years after WWII…

 

[OldSolduer]

I just find it deliciously ironic that we might be buying U-boats 70 years after WWII…

Great movie especially if they view it in German with subtitles.

 

[deepblue202]

Here is a new website that the Germans just launched:

TKMS TEAM 212CD - Canada's Future Submarine Partnership

Team 212CD brings together Germany, Norway, and Canada in a uniquely integrated submarine partnership — one that is already underway and already producing.

team212cd.ca

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Did another AI search (Brave Browser) as to the best choice for Canada (TKMS or Hanwha):

In 2026, the competition for Canada's next-generation submarine fleet has narrowed to the TKMS Type 212CD and the Hanwha Ocean KSS-III Batch II. Both are finalists for the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP), which seeks to acquire 12 conventional, under-ice capable submarines.
Technical & Performance Comparison

[th]

Feature ​

[/th][th width="42.0294%"]

TKMS Type 212CD (Germany/Norway)​

[/th][th width="41.4062%"]

Hanwha Ocean KSS-III Batch II (South Korea)​

[/th]​

[td]Philosophy[/td][td width="42.0294%"]Compact, exceptionally quiet "submarine hunter".[/td][td width="41.4062%"]Large "blue-water" hull optimized for firepower and range.[/td] [td]Displacement[/td][td width="42.0294%"]~2,500 tons (surface).[/td][td width="41.4062%"]~3,600+ tons (surface).[/td] [td]Stealth[/td][td width="42.0294%"]Unique "diamond-shaped" hull to deflect active sonar.[/td][td width="41.4062%"]Advanced noise reduction, but lacks the specific 212CD hull shaping.[/td] [td]Propulsion[/td][td width="42.0294%"]New-gen hydrogen fuel cell AIP; highly efficient at low speeds.[/td][td width="41.4062%"]Lithium-ion batteries + AIP; high energy density for long blue-water transits.[/td] [td]Armament[/td][td width="42.0294%"]6 torpedo tubes for DM2A4; planned anti-air and long-range strike (Tyrfing).[/td][td width="41.4062%"]6 torpedo tubes + Vertical Launch System (VLS) for land-attack/ballistic missiles.[/td] [td]Crew Comfort[/td][td width="42.0294%"]Historically more "cramped" design, though improved in 212CD.[/td][td width="41.4062%"]Significantly larger accommodations; superior for long-term crew retention.[/td]

Strategic & Industrial Factors

• NATO Interoperability: The Type 212CD is a joint German-Norwegian project, offering a pre-existing NATO supply chain and sensors. While the KSS-III is billed as fully NATO-interoperable, it would require a new bilateral sustainment framework between Canada and South Korea.
• Delivery Schedule: Hanwha Ocean claims a faster delivery timeline, stating that if a contract is signed in 2026, the first submarine could arrive by 2032. TKMS delivery depends on integrating Canada into its existing production line for Germany and Norway.
• Weaponry Readiness: The KSS-III’s land-attack missiles (Hyunmoo series) are already in service. Many of the Type 212CD's planned long-range munitions, such as the Tyrfing missile, are not expected until approximately 2035.
• Geopolitical Influence: The Type 212CD choice aligns with a trilateral strategic partnership between Canada, Germany, and Norway to secure the North Atlantic. Choosing the KSS-III would significantly strengthen Canada's ties with Indo-Pacific partners.

Summary of Advantages

• Pick Type 212CD if: The priority is maximum stealth in complex littorals (like the Arctic), mature NATO sensor integration, and a shared European logistics pool.
• Pick KSS-III if: The priority is heavy offensive firepower (VLS), faster delivery to replace aging Victoria-class boats, and superior crew conditions for long-range patrols.

Which Submarine Should Canada Buy? Type 212CD vs KSS-III
Which Submarine Should Canada Buy? ... Canada has narrowed its next-generation submarine competition to two boats that represent d...
Michael J. Lalonde
Canada Needs a New Submarine. Which Kind Should It Choose?
Comparing the German Type 212CD and South Korean KSS-III ... Valued at an estimated $20-24 billion CAD, the program could see deci...
The National Interest
SHIPBUILDING Showdown TKMS vs Hanwha Ocean ...
Pembangun kapal Jerman TKMS menawarkan tipe 212 CD yang dibuat untuk Norwegia dan Jerman. Submarin ini didasarkan pada tipe 212A t...
YouTube
Let's Talk about the Munitions of the Type-212CD - by Noah
Of all the weapons listed, almost none are currently in service. Most are either planned for the next decade or still in developme...
True North Strategic Review
German Type 212CD & Korean KSSIII the Finalists
Both are very good replacements for the Victoria Class. In my opinion though, I believe the Hanwha Ocean KSS-III Batch-II submarin...
Canadian Naval Review
Germany Submarine Capabilities
Class 212CD These submarines will have a surface displacement of 2,500 tons, a 65% increase from the 212A. They will be 73 meters ...
The Nuclear Threat Initiative


I highlighted in Green parts which I thought were a positive and those in Red that I thought were a negative.

A couple of notes: I'm firmly with Team Hanwha, so bare that in mind; and, the new TKMS CPSP webpage only lists two Strategic Partners: Konsberg Geospatial and Marmen, however I do believe that have signed deals with other companies (eg Babcock). The Hanwha webpage lists about a dozen or so Canadian companies that have signed deals with Hanwha.