By Blair Shaw, 28 August 2025
South Korea and Germany have been selected at the two finalists for the Canadian patrol submarine project.
To quote the release
“Today, the Honourable Joël Lightbound, Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement, and the Honourable Stephen Fuhr, Secretary of State (Defence Procurement), announced that the Government of Canada has identified German company Thyssen Krupp Marine Systems (TKMS) and Korean company Hanwha Ocean Co., Ltd. (Hanwha) as the 2 qualified suppliers for the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP).”
Image: A photo of a KSS-III Batch I on the left and a rendering of the Type 212 CD on the right. Credit: Republic of Korea Navy, ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems
7 thoughts on “German Type 212CD & Korean KSSIII the Finalists”
It was always going to come down to South Korea vs Germany. Both bring strong pedigrees, but there’s no denying the timeline advantage on the Korean side. Hanwha can put hulls in the water years ahead of TKMS, and with the RCN facing looming retirements on the Victorias, that delivery speed isn’t just a ‘nice to have’ — it’s critical. Germany offers a proven design lineage in the 212CD, but if Canada wants to avoid another submarine capability gap, Seoul looks like the smarter play.
Agreed, Ted. But I fear that we will ask for a degree of customization/Canadianization that first deliveries greatly exceed the Victorias’ sell-by date.
Beyond what is necessary to comply with domestic laws, ‘unique Canadian requirements’ should be a four-letter word.
Hello Ted. Yes, those are the 2 government finalists for the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project( CPSP). Both are very good replacements for the Victoria Class. In my opinion though, I believe the Hanwha Ocean KSS-III Batch-II submarine may have a slight edge for one reason. It comes with a VLS package which Canada favours right now. The TKMS Type 212CD from Germany does not have that option however, TKMS also has the Type 216 HDW ready to be built (See below link). This is one of 2 submarine types (the other being the French Barricuda class Block 1A variant) that Australia was seriously considering before it decided to go all nuclear on us. The German HDW Type 216 also has a VLS package (in 3 sizes) along with something the KSS-III Batch-II does not – a double hull, which would be very useful for Canadian Arctic operations as a safety feature. It is also heavier at over 4,300 tonnes (submerged) which would be useful for breaking through the thick high Arctic ice and has a crew size of 33 (+22). If Canada were to go with Germany’s TKMS option (IMOO), I believe the German HDW Type 216 variant of the TKMS 212CD would be a better option. Although the HDW Type 216 has just about everything Canada would require in a non-nuclear sub, the extra costs would also have to be considered ($$). It will be interesting to see what happens in the near future. Cheers!
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/type-216.htm
David, the Type 216 is a fantasy boat — it exists only on glossy brochures and PowerPoint slides. Canada can’t afford another “paper design” procurement disaster, we’ve already lived through CSC and AOPS delays. The 212CD and KSS-III are real, in production, and proven with allied navies.
As for VLS, that’s a South Korean regional deterrence add-on, not a Canadian requirement. There’s no evidence Ottawa wants or needs VLS in its SOR — our past practice has been torpedo-tube launched cruise missiles, not building a mini-SSBN. Same with the ‘double hull Arctic breaker’ claim — no diesel-electric submarine, single or double hulled, is going to punch through multi-year ice. That’s SSN territory. At best, any conventional boat will still be hugging polynyas and marginal ice zones.
And let’s be blunt — a 4,000+ tonne, 50–60 crew submarine is a nightmare for a navy that can barely crew four Victorias. Bigger isn’t better if you can’t man or maintain it. The 216 would just pile cost and risk onto an already fragile project.
As I’ve said before, picking the KSS-III would actually get us hulls in the water — at least 4 submarines by 2032. The real decision is between two proven platforms: the 212CD with NATO partners, or the KSS-III with faster delivery but less alliance commonality. Everything else is a distraction.
Ted, to my knowledge, the RCN has no “past practice” whatsoever of owning, let alone employing, “torpedo-tube launched cruise missiles.” Have I missed something?
I’m reluctant to rely on Wikipedia, but an entry on the Hyunmoo-3 supersonic cruise missile states that the KSS-III will be equipped with a variant of the latter: the Hyunmoo-3B, nicknamed “Eagle-2” (독수리-2) or Cheonryong. Moreover, the missiles will be fired from the sub’s 10 VLS cells, rather than through the torpedo tubes.
If true, this means that the short (i.e., 500km)-range Hyunmoo 4-4 sub-launched BALLISTIC missile is not the only weapon that is designed to be deployed from the K-VLS. So, assuming that an RCN HLMR exists for some sort of long-range precision strike weapon, might Canada order the Hyunmoo-3 SLCM along with the KSS-III?
Understood that non-NATO weapons would take time and effort to integrate into allied planning, as their performance and effects may not be well known. But if we do not acquire them, what is to be done with those 10 VLS cells? Will they be deleted from the Canadian version of the KSS-III, or re-purposed? As noted by Dr. Middlemiss, CRCN favours buying the design ‘as is’.
I agree that Canada has a real opportunity with the Hanwha proposal to get a very good, proven KS-III submarine fleet in a very timely manner.
VAdm Topshee has consistently promoted the idea of procuring an ‘as is’ in-service submarine quickly (contract signing by end 2025 or early 2026) to replace the Victoria-class by the early 2030s and no later than 2035. He prefers 12 submarines in total so that the Navy is ensured up to 3 at sea at any one time.
Hanwha says it can deliver the first boat by 2032 and 4 no later than 2035 if a contract is signed early in 2036. And because Hanwha is expanding its construction facilities (to be completed in 2029) it will be able to delivery a KSS-III every year for the next 8 years. This will be possible because the expanded construction line will be able to produce 5 submarines and 3 surface ships simultaneously. Hanwha estimates that early retirement of the 4 Victoria-class subs will save Canada $1Billion.
Hanwha has further offered in-country training for Canadian submariners in South Korea so the Navy can be ready to operate the new subs once they are delivered and properly tested. The company also has proposed training in Canada to facilitate the operation and maintenance of the submarines.
In addition, if the RCD program proceeds well, Canada could once again deploy credible National Task Groups possibly starting in the 2038-39 period. Moreover, The KSS-III Batch ii comes equipped with 10 K-VLS tubes to fire submarine launched cruise missiles. This would greatly augment the offensive punch of the RCDs and provide a real land attack option to the CAF, should Ottawa decide to go down that road.
Nobody is disputing the superb reputation of TKMS, but its promises of better interoperability and superior stealth, while certainly nice-to-have, should not outweigh the benefit of early and rapid delivery by Hanwha. Moreover, better stealth will not necessarily be an advantage in Arctic operations. The submarines will simply have to wait in ambush at the main northern ingress routes. As many old hands can attest, the Arctic itself, especially near the ice, is a very acoustically noisy place.
TKMS has been fairly tight-lipped about what it is really offering, and is playing the usual economic games to seduce the politicians. Vague promises of work and jobs for all 3 existing Canadian shipyards, and even the hint that the Type-212CD could be built in Canada, if Ottawa so desires. The latter would be certain to sink the whole program in my opinion. TKMS seems to be playing catch-up to the South Koreans, and the reality is, that for all its sub expertise, the TKMS offering of the Type-212CD is much larger than its precursors and is still in many respects a paper design in development. There will be the usual gremlins to sort out when the first sub is delivered, whereas the KSS-III is a proven, in-service design.
I agree with Ted, the South Koreans seem to hold most of the high cards in the CPSP competition.
At risk of repeating, the 216 is most certainly one of the fantasy boats. It didn’t sell for many reasons mainly because no one was interested in what it offered.
As for the current situation, while I would love to see us procure Type 212CD, the Koreans do hold the upper hand right now so reluctantly I’d concede and say it’s probably going to be Korean.