This is an AI Overview gathered June 19, 2026 - Perhaps announced by the Canadian Government in 30 days:
The competition hinges on several key advantages and trade-offs offered by both manufacturers: [1, 2]
1. South Korea (Hanwha Ocean)
- Delivery Speed: This is Hanwha’s greatest advantage. Because the KSS-III is already operational, they promise to deliver the first submarines by 2035—exactly when the Royal Canadian Navy's aging Victoria-class fleet begins retiring. [1, 2]
- Proven Performance: Instead of relying on a new developmental platform, Hanwha offers a large, heavy (3,600-ton) proven design with lithium-battery power and long submerged endurance required for Arctic patrols. [1, 2, 3]
- Industrial Benefits: Hanwha has proposed billions in local investments. This includes using Canadian steel for production and a CA$3.1 billion initiative ("Project Beaver") for hydrogen-powered infrastructure, aiming to create roughly 22,500 jobs annually. [1, 2, 3]
2. Germany (TKMS)
Germany is putting forward the Type 212CD, a next-generation submarine being co-developed for the German and Norwegian navies. [1]
- Design & Innovation: The Type 212CD emphasizes cutting-edge European NATO technology, but it is still a new development, making it more of a "first-of-class" risk compared to the Korean design. [1, 2]
- Delivery Bottlenecks: TKMS's production facilities in Germany are currently strained with existing orders, meaning they can only offer a best-case estimate of one vessel by 2035, with the rest rolling out considerably later. [1, 2]
- Industrial & Strategic Offers: TKMS offers deep NATO integration and has partnered with Canadian shipyards (like Seaspan). Crucially, they are also dangling extensive intellectual property (IP) transfers so Canada can maintain the vessels independently over their life cycle. [1, 2, 3]
Observers view the competition as a classic trade-off between Korean readiness and scale vs. German innovation and technology transfer. While TKMS has traditional ties to NATO, Hanwha's ability to meet critical 2035 delivery windows and its aggressive industrial job-creation packages have given it strong momentum in the final stages of the procurement process. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]" End of AI.
Peter Comment
If NATO member Canada sees (defence against Russia) NATO solidarity as uppermost then NATO Germany's TKMS may win.
I think the winner of the competition odds are SK 45% and Germany 55%.
The KSS-III (IF? it has VLS) might be a slightly better sub having more heavyweight shots overall and they are more readily available than slower firing horizontal torpedo tube launches.
The KSS-III (IF? it has VLS) might be a slightly better sub having more heavyweight shots overall and they are more readily available than slower firing horizontal torpedo tube launches.
The TKMS Type 212CD has the political alliance advantage (Canada being in NATO) of being from fellow NATO country (Germany). Also the main allies the new sub will need to interoperate with are in NATO (against Russia).
Canada would have less interest in interoperating with SK against NK or China or for that matter against SK's "frenemy" Japan.
Canada would have less interest in interoperating with SK against NK or China or for that matter against SK's "frenemy" Japan.
10 comments:
Can anybody explain in which conflict scenario VLS could be useful for Canada?
Why can the South Korean submarines be built with Canadian steel? I guess Germany won't share the part about the amagnetic steel they used to build their submarines. "Export" variants like Type 214 use normal steel. Type 212 uses the amagnetic steel type.
Regards,
MHalblaub
Hi MHalblaub at 6/19/2026 7:03 AM
At the risk of pointing out the VLS advantages of the Hanwha sub compared to TKMS not having VLS.
Canada may value VLS for the same reasons South Korea (land attack and potential long range anti-ship) and the US (land attack and anti-ship) do. SLCMs and SLBMs can travel 1,000+ km very quickly while torpedoes are more limited to 80km and useless for land attack.
A VLS ripple launch of up to 30 missiles in 10 seconds is better than 6 horizontally launched missiles in 2 minutes.
Even Ukraine is conducting long range land attacks on Russia (like against Moscow in the last few days). So it is possible Canada (in a NATO coalition) may also need to do so, in years to come. For Canada the targets could also be in eastern Siberia and anti-shipping against Russia's Pacific Fleet and bases (ships in Vladivostok etc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Fleet_(Russia)#Order_of_battle ) .
Also Canada's possible future VLS may be of dimensions to accommodate non-weapons like UUVs, seafloor sensors and also special forces stores.
Cheers Pete
Excuse me, but I don't see the sense behind the VLS-argument:
1. Canada doesn't demand SLBMs/VLS systems and judging from what the new submarines are supposed to do (hunting hostile vessels on and below the seas, in open waters and under ice), they aren't up to the task. And such a complex aspect of a defence programme isn’t a mere "nice to have add-on" - it costs money, requires additional logistics and shapes the submarine design significantly, although it doesn't improve its performance in the pre-defined field of capabilities.
2. The Canadian armed forces don't feature a ballistic missile capacity and they are not planned to, because their strategic documents don't include them.
3. Hanwha offers a version of the DSME-3000 to Canada, which is essentially a KSS-III without SLBMs. Just recently, CBC published a video on that topic. They mentioned a displacement of 3.000 tons for the South Korean offer, which is well below the tonnage of both batch 1 and batch 2 KSS-III boats.
4. If SLBMs were an important element of the future submarine - how does the Type 212CD fit that image? It would have been excluded right away.
Hanwha launched a major PR campaign in order to influence at least the online perception of their product. TKMS doesn't do that.
And concerning off-set-deals: The European offer includes Canadian access to the EU single market, which is several times larger than South Korea's. It's even bigger than China's market.
And Canada coud lend money through the EU's SAFE facility. South Korea has nothing comparable on the table.
Why is THAT never taken into account?
I think the AI article is a bit tough on TKMS. Hanwha has undoubtedly got more build capacity, but Germany and Norway have both agreed to guarantee delivery timing of the first few subs, even giving up positions in the build queue if needed. Both companies can definitely deliver at least two subs before 2035.
https://www.techtimes.com/articles/317435/20260530/canadas-60b-submarine-contract-germany-pledges-2036-delivery-june-decision-nears.htm
Hi Anonymouses at 6/20/2026 6:14 AM and at 6/20/2026 9:47 AM
I acknowledge your greater expertise than I on future Canadian Submarine issues. I think the odds are SK 45% and Germany 55%.
The KSS-III might be a slightly better sub. But the Type 212CD has the political alliance advantage (Canada being in NATO) of being from fellow NATO country (Germany). Also the main allies the new sub will need to interoperate with are in NATO (against Russia).
Canada would have less interest in interoperating with SK against NK or China or for that matter against SK's "frenemy" Japan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenemy
Cheers Pete
An interesting article
"NATO looms over Canada's Korea-Germany submarine choice"
by Kim Hee-su dated June 22, 2026
at https://m.ajupress.com/amp/20260622162121890
People forget that the KS-III VLS can also launch SLCMs which could attack enemy surface ships and/or land installations. Also the CPSP specifically stated a "land attack capability" was required. What better land attack capability then 10 VLS tubes?
As for the NATO angle, that is where TKMS has an advantage and Canada is looking to expand its defence ties with NATO countries. For example, Canada and Italy are looking for a deal to produce the Leonardo M-346 trainer for our Future Fighter Training program
However, Canada under the current Prime Minister is also trying to pivot to the Pacific area. In that regard so far Canada has signed several agreements/MOUs with South Korea including one on the Transfer of Classified Information. The same for Japan. And at present there a Canadian trade delegation visiting Japan that includes 300 executives from 170 companies.
So who wins? Don't know but if past statements hold, will should know within the next week.
If you want to read a good write-up on the advantages/disadvantages of the KS-III vs U212CD check out this article by Michael J. LaLonde:
https://www.michaeljlalonde.com/2025/09/15/which-submarine-should-canada-buy/
You may find this article of interest:
https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/geopolitics-and-policy/18405-two-navies-similar-problems-different-solutions-canada-and-australia-s-diverging-submarine-futures
I hope the Australian navy is keeping an eye on this competition. If Canada chooses the TKMS design and AUKUS goes sideways - either from lack of capacity or from a change of government - then there is a window for Australia to get conventional subs with VLS in a time frame that fits well with plans for retiring the Collins class
Hi Bill Seney and Anonymouses at 6/24/2026 9:00 AM and 6/24/2026 8:56 AM (the last noting I talked about SLCMs in my comment of 6/19/2026 1:14 PM above)
Thanks for your comments and links. I wish Australia decided to have Soryus built by Japan in 2014 (even Abbott was right about that). But unlike Canada, which is speeding to a mostly foreign build decision, maybe in a few weeks, our build in Adelaide missteps conquer all.
Now we have all the uncertainties of what I've dubbed the "AUKUS Trifecta" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trifecta having to deal with our own government's shaky record on long term arms projects, the Trump regime and a broke, unstable UK government with a new PM (and Defence Secretary) every 18 months.
Except for the long Ottawa winters Canada looks rosier.
See my latest on Canada's sub issues "Might Canada Choose a KSS-III Batch-I Sized "DSME-3000" Without VLS?" of June 24, 2026 at https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2026/06/might-canada-choose-kss-iii-batch-i.html
Cheers Pete
Post a Comment