Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP, Victoria-class replacement)

EmoBirb said:
I think TKMS has a strong case if Canada is also buying into other German/European defense programs, like associated weapons systems, missiles etc.

The issue I see with the Korean offer is that it relies in large part on Korean weapons. And Korean ordnance isn't as widespread and in large scale use as European systems. And adapting it to use US made systems would probably be politically unviable and using European weapons? Well then might as well buy the 212CD. So Canada could benefit and participate in the development and production of ordnance and systems for the submarines and future systems, in essence they would have the chance to join the European sphere of naval systems and weapons. Which is a very broad and lucrative market with many international customers and participants. And I don't see the Korean industry on that level really, as they mostly serve the Korean Domestic Market.

Yes, the 212CD isn't constructed yet, but the 212A has been and in general German submarines have a serious track record especially on the export market, even the Koreans themselves have/had Type 214 subs. So I don't think there is really any risk attached to this development, given the track record and both Germany and Norway firmly committed to the project.

Both are serious offers however and in either case the Canadians would end up with capable subs, the question is just which is the better deal and I'd argue it's the 212CD all things considered.
Click to expand...
The RCN has not shown any interest in diversifying away from the planned US weapon pool for surface ships, so it seems like European weapon systems for that branch are unlikely to be proliferating throughout the fleet. I recall the head of the RCN saying that as far as the submarines go though, they will be sticking with the weapons provided by the supplier nation to limit required integration and design work on the submarines. It seems the RCN very much wants as close to a military off the shelf design here as humanly possible, with only the most important systems being changed.

Canada seems like it will be adopting the weapons of the design nation, so whatever systems procured will very likely be jointly developed atleast with the ideas/wants of the Canadians involved for the future. The Koreans have spoken about licensing munitions production domestically in Canada to supply themselves, Korea and other customers, and I do not recall the German's mentioning such a thing. We are more interested in our own submarine procurement and logistics, so I think the potential for exports abroad is a nice plus, but ultimately not a requirement.

I wouldn't put the Koreans down at this point, they've broken out into many markets especially with regard to land based systems. The fact that they are putting up stiff competition to the premier western submarine exporter in the world in this contest specifically should be a good example of how far the Koreans have come.

I am personally somewhat mistrusting of the German delivery timelines and many of the promises given, they are looking at a production logjam between the German and Norwegian orders, let alone the Polish and other foreign orders they are courting as well. There has been talk about letting Canada take over a boat or two to skip the line a bit, but this seems like a temporary fix to a larger political issue of stepping into the cutthroat environment of current Euro rearmament. Their overall delivery timelines are seriously behind what the Koreans have promised, although any of these timelines given should be taken with a grain of salt.

I agree entirely that either design would provide Canada some very capable submarines, although I personally lean more towards the Korean offering and design especially considering its substantial versatility due to its large VLS bank aboard.
 
"I am personally somewhat mistrusting of the German delivery timelines and many of the promises given, they are looking at a production logjam between the German and Norwegian orders, let alone the Polish and other foreign orders they are courting as well."

Well, Hanwha is likewise a contender for the Polish Orca programme. KSS IIIs are produced both by Hanwha and Hyundai Heavy Industries, while the 212CD is going to be made by TKMS´s shipyards in Kiel and Wismar. Alltogether, there will be 9 KSS IIIs and 12 to 15 212CDs, so the difference in production capacities and occupancy rate is likely similar, if the Canadian order for 8 or 12 subs is added.
 
Last edited:
maritimeXplorer said:
Well, Hanwha is likewise a contender for the Polish Orca programme. KSS IIIs are produced both by Hanwha and Hyundai Heavy Industries, while the 212CD is going to be made by TKMS´s shipyards in Kiel and Wismar. Alltogether, there will be 9 KSS IIIs and 12 to 15 212CDs, so the difference in production capacities and occupancy rate is likely similar, if the Canadian order for 8 or 12 subs is added.
Click to expand...
Unlike Germany, South Korea already has two separate yards fully worked up and actively building submarines at this time. Germany is trying to set up its second yard and seemingly has quite a bit to go in doing so, especially with the building of such a complex and modern submarine design. Hanwha is indeed a contender for the Polish Orca program however, their order book (3 KSS-III Batch I delivered, 3 Batch II planned and 3 Batch III planned) is much smaller than the German counterpart (10 boats already ordered between Germany & Norway with an additional 5 likely on order soon) even before you start looking at wherever the 4 boat Polish order will land, let alone Singapore ordering an additional 2 invincible-class submarines recently and TKMS needing to assist India with its order of 6 Type 214 boats domestically.

I think Germany can eventually handle its orders it has and likely will have, but I am concerned in the short term that they will not be able to meet the timelines we have in place.
 
Rainbow1910 said:
Unlike Germany, South Korea already has two separate yards fully worked up and actively building submarines at this time. Germany is trying to set up its second yard and seemingly has quite a bit to go in doing so, especially with the building of such a complex and modern submarine design. Hanwha is indeed a contender for the Polish Orca program however, their order book (3 KSS-III Batch I delivered, 3 Batch II planned and 3 Batch III planned) is much smaller than the German counterpart (10 boats already ordered between Germany & Norway with an additional 5 likely on order soon) even before you start looking at wherever the 4 boat Polish order will land, let alone Singapore ordering an additional 2 invincible-class submarines recently and TKMS needing to assist India with its order of 6 Type 214 boats domestically.

I think Germany can eventually handle its orders it has and likely will have, but I am concerned in the short term that they will not be able to meet the timelines we have in place.
Click to expand...
From what I heard, only the first few boats are supposed to be build in South Korea or Germany. By delivering packages, foreign shipyards can be enabled to assemble German submarine designs (see e.g. Italy in the past for the Type 212A). Hanwha can do the same, however, TKMS is much more experienced in this practice business-wise.
The same is true regarding the Indian and Singaporean orders, so I don´t see a particular reason why the German offer should not be viable in this regard. On the other hand, the South Korean submarine industry so far didn´t engage in large scale export. Their capacities are primarily tailored to provide for the domestic market. Yes, Indonesia received some South Korean Type 209s, but that´s it basically. And TKMS announced it could create an output of 3 to 4 submarines per year (!). While this is quite a claim, Hanwha doesn´t make headlines through humble statements either...
 
maritimeXplorer said:
From what I heard, only the first few boats are supposed to be build in South Korea or Germany. By delivering packages, foreign shipyards can be enabled to assemble German submarine designs (see e.g. Italy in the past for the Type 212A). Hanwha can do the same, however, TKMS is much more experienced in this practice business-wise.
The same is true regarding the Indian and Singaporean orders, so I don´t see a particular reason why the German offer should not be viable in this regard. On the other hand, the South Korean submarine industry so far didn´t engage in large scale export. Their capacities are primarily tailored to provide for the domestic market. Yes, Indonesia received some South Korean Type 209s, but that´s it basically. And TKMS announced it could create an output of 3 to 4 submarines per year (!). While this is quite a claim, Hanwha doesn´t make headlines through humble statements either...
Click to expand...
If you are referring to Canada in the first sentence, that information is not correct. Germany pitched the idea of building/assembling submarines domestically in Canada however, this flies directly in the face of the CPSP's stated goals and the idea has been shot down by both the head of the RCN and the Minister of National Defence recently. Canada is not interested in setting up domestic production of the submarines from either nation, and the production will be offshored to whoever wins the contract.

Singapore is having its submarines built in Germany, while India is building theirs domestically with German assistance. TKMS's claim is a bit hard for me to believe, at least not until they have their second shipyard fully operational and churning out submarines. Korea has two fairly high capability domestic submarine producers who can seemingly more than meet our timeline, as they've already promised to exceed our requirements by a fair margin. Anybody can make any claim at the end of the day, but I tend to put more stock in the person who's backed up by two proven shipyards without a huge backlog versus the other person saying they can totally handle it, while drowning in requests which are already ahead of us in line. I still think the German order is inferior from the standpoint of delivery timelines, given the stacked deck that TKMS is dealing with as far as production.
 
Weird.

I swear I had a comment that the Hanwha proposal seemed a lot better for the Canadians overall. Much better timeline at the very least. Was that in a different thread?
 
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/pol...hyundai-volkswagen-investments-submarine-bid/
Ottawa has asked the governments of South Korea and Germany ... to facilitate auto industry production pledges in Canada as part of the pitches, a source familiar with the matter said.
Click to expand...
Industry Minister Mélanie Joly’s office declined to comment on what Canada has asked of the bidder countries. But it said it wants to see robust industrial benefits from defence spending.
Click to expand...
Stephen Fuhr, secretary of state for defence procurement, has repeatedly said Canada will pick the submarine bid that creates the most Canadian jobs.
Click to expand...
I guess the deal will be signed based on who could convince their own auto industry (Hyundai MG/VW Group) first. Hyundai failed once in Bromont already, but I wonder if they might consider this time differemt.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
...I guess the deal will be signed based on who could convince their own auto industry (Hyundai MG/VW Group) first. Hyundai failed once in Bromont already, but I wonder if they might consider this time differemt.
Click to expand...

Yes and they lost 99% of their investment in the Bromont factory too. This time, the way to go would be to tie into the EV battery production that Ottawa invested so much in. In that, VW is alread well ahead with their St. Thomas, ON, battery cell gigafactory.

The low-hanging fruit for Hyundai might be the now-abandoned work on the planned Northvolt battery factory in McMasterville, QC. Back in September 2025, the Government of Québec wrote off its Northvolt investments ... so, if Korean plans included battery cell production, I'd bet that the GdQ would be thrilled to see Hyundai back again ;)
 
Now it seems like both countries shot down Canada's demand. New investment of private companies are their own decision. Though I'd assume that the Canadian government will not give up and demand something a bit more... nuanced?
 
Maro.Kyo said:
Now it seems like both countries shot down Canada's demand. New investment of private companies are their own decision. Though I'd assume that the Canadian government will not give up and demand something a bit more... nuanced?
Click to expand...
I would point out that this program is very large, long term and multifaceted. It's not especially uncommon to see demands tried and rotated out, I'd expect the Canadian Govt to pivot elsewhere if automotive incentives don't work. This is one of the largest submarine procurements within recent memory, the sellers will have to work for it.
 
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ottawa-submarine-contract-europe-south-korea/
The senior government sources say Ottawa is looking at buying six Type-212CD submarines to be built by Germany’s TKMS. Those submarines would patrol the Atlantic Coast, the sources said. Ottawa would also acquire six Hanwha KSS-III Batch-II submarines. The sources say those submarines would be located on the Pacific coast and could be deployed to the Indo-Pacific region.
Click to expand...
The sources say the benefit of splitting the contract is that Canada would reap industrial benefits from both bidders, including possible investments in this country’s auto industry. Canada’s auto sector has been hit hard by U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs, as have the country’s steel and aluminum industries.
Click to expand...

Well well, although not specified in the article, I have heard that the bid submitted by both countries do not include the construction of an auto plant, positions unchanged from earlier this year. Though I wonder what made Canada think that the two countries will retain their offset commitments if they split their order in half.
 
Last edited:
Maro.Kyo said:
Well well, although not specified in the article, I have heard that the bid submitted by both countries do not include the construction of an auto plant, positions unchanged from earlier this year. Though I wonder what maked Canada think that the two countries will retain their offset commitments if they split their order in half.
Click to expand...
To be clear the desire for an auto plant comes largely from Melanie Joly, the Industry Minister, and doesn't seem to have been a hard requirement. This is likely for the best as the Koreans were not especially happy about being forced to open a plant in a questionable market, and the Germans didn't really want to dump a bunch of money into expansions to existing plants either. I'm not sure how much stock I'd put in this split fleet rumour as Carney has specifically came out in the past saying we will not be splitting the fleet, and doing so would be a logistical nightmare for the RCN in an already difficult project.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
Well well, although not specified in the article, I have heard that the bid submitted by both countries do not include the construction of an auto plant, positions unchanged from earlier this year. Though I wonder what maked Canada think that the two countries will retain their offset commitments if they split their order in half.
Click to expand...
Delusional thinking.

Canada is going to have to give stuff up in order to get Germany and RoK accept a cut in the order.
 
https://esut.de/2026/05/meldungen/7...sche-weichenstellung-zwischen-kiel-und-geoje/
Insane price
The unit price of the Canadian U212CD, at around 3.08 billion euros, compared to the German or Norwegian units in the second batch, which range from about 1.8 to 1.95 billion euros, is primarily due to the “Canadianization” of the design. In addition to the Arctic specialization, the mandatory 100% industrial reinvestment (ITB) accounts for the increase. The price thus reflects less the hardware itself and more the massive technology transfer and the establishment of a self-sufficient Canadian value chain.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
sparky42 said:
TKMS is hoping for the win I guess...
Click to expand...

Beyond Canadian membership in the EU's SAFE instrument, there has also been a major push to accept Canada as a source of raw materials, metal stocks, etc., for European defence production. Welland-based Valbruna ASW as a supplier may just be part of that process (including meeting WIWeB standards as the linked article notes).

Even if we do assume that sourcing steel from Valbruna ASW is a ploy to clinch a CPSP purchase, as a gambit, it pales compared to South Korean efforts - KSS-III ROKS Dosan Ahn Changho sent to Esquimalt for training exercises with the RCN; Seoul offering increased industrial/technological cooperation and sustainment; Hanwha Ocean's training and workforce enhancement agreements with Mohawk College and Ontario Shipyards; etc.

AFAIK, the counter-offer is Norway and Germany giving up slots to speed delivery to Canada (no small thing!) and TKMS buying non-magnetic steel from Welland. But, doubtless, as decision time gets closer, further 'sweeteners' will be offered.
 
Latest rumor has the Germans winning it
Which I personally think is the wrong one but it 12 new subs.
 
It's still a paper design and while I am grateful to both the Germans and I believe it's the Norwegians?
I can't help but wonder if this doesn't weaken the the European end of NATO if only for short while.
And I honestly thought the Korean KS III provided a better vessel for thr Arctic and Pacific .
And the incredible industrial package they offered was literally the chef's kiss on the deal.
 
German/Norwegian requirements should be more akin to Canadian requirements, compared to Korean requirements and Canadian requirements.
 
EmoBirb said:
German/Norwegian requirements should be more akin to Canadian requirements, compared to Korean requirements and Canadian requirements.
Click to expand...
Actually what Ive been hearing the Navy preferred the KS III by a slight margin.
Hey! Either way it's 12 new subs .
 
And now this has been add to the mix. Apparently TKM has offered to build some of the boats here in Canada. This deal was about domestic politics and vote buying. National Security and Defence barely came into it.
 
GK. Dundas said:
And now this has been add to the mix. Apparently TKM has offered to build some of the boats here in Canada. This deal was about domestic politics and vote buying. National Security and Defence barely came into it.
Click to expand...
TKMS historically has a pretty good record delivering subs built domestically or in foreign yards through technology transfer. That must have counted in their favor relative to Korea's more limited track record, even if the tech specs were similar on paper (only 1 ToT deal for Korea, with Indonesia, which concerned an older T209 design and which has not been smooth sailing apparently).

That said this is Canada and I fully expect any local build to take forever and to cost several times what a foreign built SSK would cost. Will also be interesting to compare how this turns out compared to the Dutch Orca SSK program, which is a close comparable in terms of timing, size and spec.
 
EmoBirb said:
German/Norwegian requirements should be more akin to Canadian requirements, compared to Korean requirements and Canadian requirements.
Click to expand...
Except that the longer deployment range of the Korean boats is a better match for 2/3rds of Canada's deployment zones.

Arctic zone - favors long time submerged, advantage to the KSS-3
Pacific zone - favors long travel ranges, advantage to the KSS-3
Atlantic zone - Type 212 is designed for Atlantic operations, advantage to the Type 212.
 
I would have been surprised if the KSS-III had won outright although I could've seen a split order. The reasons are:
1/ The 212CD is a new NATO design
2/ The KSS-III is an evolution of a German design although much advanced.
3/ Possibly most important, SUBSAFE...
 
GK. Dundas said:
Actually what Ive been hearing the Navy preferred the KS III by a slight margin.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Was this from insider sources or from media reports? I wonder what characteristics of KSS III would put it slightly ahead for Canada's requirements
 
GK. Dundas said:
... Apparently TKM has offered to build some of the boats here in Canada. This deal was about domestic politics and vote buying. National Security and Defence barely came into it.
Click to expand...

The importance of citizen buy-in for the CPSP really shouldn't be under-estimated.

H_K said:
...That said this is Canada and I fully expect any local build to take forever and to cost several times what a foreign built SSK would cost...
Click to expand...

And allows time for DND to gold-plate all of the non-essential components ...

One wonders whether TKM Group even listens to TKM Canada. Surely head office has been advised on what a bag of snakes opens up with local production. On the other hand, the appeal of said offer will really depend upon whether the current GoC still believes that the National Shipbuilding Strategy delivers value.

Scott Kenny said:
...
Arctic zone - favors long time submerged, advantage to the KSS-3
Pacific zone - favors long travel ranges, advantage to the KSS-3
Atlantic zone - Type 212 is designed for Atlantic operations, advantage to the Type 212.
Click to expand...

And there's the defence argument in favour of a mixed fleet with separate mtx and training facilities at Esquimalt and Halifax. This is also where trade connections and other perceived economic advantages could potentially outweigh the total procurement costs. Although we are still dealing with a Canadian wallet ...

I guess we may find out tonight.
 
Apophenia said:
And there's the defence argument in favour of a mixed fleet with separate mtx and training facilities at Esquimalt and Halifax. This is also where trade connections and other perceived economic advantages could potentially outweigh the total procurement costs. Although we are still dealing with a Canadian wallet ...
Click to expand...
Problem is that the Arctic flotilla (of KSS3) would need to be at Halifax with the Atlantic flotilla (notionally of T212).

IMO you should have maintenance on both coasts because of how far apart they are**, but Canadian sub school can be in one place.

** Getting from Esquimalt/Vancouver to Halifax is a matter of either going up and around Alaska, or down through the Panama Canal.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Arctic zone - favors long time submerged, advantage to the KSS-3
Pacific zone - favors long travel ranges, advantage to the KSS-3
Atlantic zone - Type 212 is designed for Atlantic operations, advantage to the Type 212.
Click to expand...
A German (and Norwegian) submarine is perfectly suited for Arctic environments, because it will operate there. Unlike the Koreans, Germans and Norwegian designers have plenty of experience with cold water operations and the pitfalls that come with them. Probably only the Russians and Swedes have a more comprehensive grasp on this matter.
 
Quite interestingly, Norway, Germany and Canada will not only operate the same submarine, but also all use the P-8A for ASW.

I imagine this will lend itself to trilateral, large scale, joint ASW drills and exercises, increasing the depth of military cooperation in the North Atlantic (literally).
 
Scott Kenny said:
Problem is that the Arctic flotilla (of KSS3) would need to be at Halifax with the Atlantic flotilla (notionally of T212).
Click to expand...

That would depend very much upon what Arctic operations consist of. The RCN has always been 'Halifax-centric' ... but that has been doubly true for submarines.

If sovereignty assurance through deterrence is a primary Arctic mission, it makes most sense to secure both west and east approaches to the Northwest Passage. Put another way, Canada does not have one "Arctic zone".

Scott Kenny said:
IMO you should have maintenance on both coasts because of how far apart they are**, but Canadian sub school can be in one place.
Click to expand...

My reference was to type-specific familiarisation not baseline training.

In the past, both Fleet Maintenance Facilities performed sub mtx. But a decision was made to concentrate resources at FMF Cape Breton. As a rule of thumb, a decade without experience represents a total loss of local relevant skills. FMF Cape Scott is at a disadvantage and has some serious catching up to do.

Because of the Victoria class, MARPAC will be designated 'submarine centre of excellence' for baseline training. But for specific type training, there would need to be suitable simulators (of all types), SETT, and other aids on west and east coasts. (And it is easy to see how such duplication provides a solid argument for those against a mixed fleet.)

Scott Kenny said:
** Getting from Esquimalt/Vancouver to Halifax is a matter of either going up and around Alaska, or down through the Panama Canal.
Click to expand...

Quite. Thus both routes taking RCN subs through US-controlled waters. But the biggest threat to MARPAC resources is the previously-mention siphon effect from MARLANT.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom