Does the
TKMS-Canadian Marmen Collaboration Mean the Type 212CD has won the Canadian
future submarine competition?
See Fatima Bahtić's NavalToday article TKMS teams up with Canadian manufacturer on Type 212CD submarine segments of December 19, 2025 at https://www.navaltoday.com/2025/12/19/tkms-teams-up-with-canadian-manufacturer-on-type-212cd-submarine-segments/
Pete Comment
I think only if South Korea's Hanwha Ocean has been eliminated from Canada's future submarine competition (CPSP) could a Canadian company be permitted by TKMS to have knowledge of highly confidential TKMS submarine design details and manufacturing processes.
Also TKMS may be benefitting from the "NATO First" policy (eg. described in the UK) shift that may have benefitted Sweden's SAAB in winning the Polish submarine competition against (non-NATO country) South Korea's Hanwha Ocean.
6 comments:
Hi Pete, I’m a big Sarah McLachlan fan, so Merry Christmas (the wars are not over)
Regarding the CPSP, I believe that both bids have merit and it will basically be decided on the usual political backroom deals and offsets. Both bidders have seen how they ‘lost’ the Polish Orka replacement project to the Swedes, and are likely to have ‘adjusted’ their bids.
Thanks Shawn
TKMS (with a long German, Norwegian CD and Israeli "Dolphin 3" backlog) and even more Hanwha Ocean are indeed hungry for foreign orders. Backroom cost cutting and offsets being order of the day.
I'm glad you're enjoying the Holiday Songs https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2025/12/merry-christmas-and-peaceful-2026.html
May snow fall in Singapore :)
Cheers Pete
My Sydney based brother is now holidaying in Finland.. 😂
I personally reckon offsets will be the main deal maker for this project, and I don’t think either Hanwha Ocean nor TKMS are ahead - while the Euros will offer NATO compatibility, the Canadians may have to compromise with a ‘North Atlantic’ design, while HH may offer better industrial offsets, and a “NATO compatible” design more tailored for Canada’s needs for ocean patrol.
Hello Pete and merry Christmas. I have no knowledge of the offsets available to each side, but if his comes down to a horse trading exercise then TKMS may be well placed. Considering a broader economic viewpoint, Canada’s economy is suffering from Trump’s arbitrary tariffs. They would be desperate to seek new markets for products where the USA market has been effectively denied them. The EU has far more scope for general trade deals here than Korea.
I could easily see this sub contract becoming a bargaining chip for Canada to get better market access in the EU. In fact, I think the F35 contract might switch to Gripens for exactly the same reason. The EU would also like better access to the Canadian market to partly make up for loss of some US markets.
This is not to rule out Korea either on cost or quality grounds. But I think the EU would have a lot of cards to play.
The answer could be SAFE.
https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-defence-industry/safe-security-action-europe_en
Canada is now in.
Regards,
MHalblaub
Considering operations in the cold, icy Arctic Ocean,
the stability of the lithium-ion batteries and protection of the hydrogen storage vessels and piping located outside the pressure hull seem important.
If I were a Canadian official, I would choose based on price and performance,
but if I were a submariner or their family member, I would want to choose the proven TKMS. Frankly, I'm afraid of Korean-made products.
Post a Comment