By Dr. Ann Griffiths, 22 January 2026
Both TKMS and Hanwha Ocean are sweetening the pot to win the contract to build Canada’s new submarines. After a stressful year for Canada, being wooed is a great feeling.
Given uncertainty in economic and security matters, Germany is hoping to strengthen defence cooperation among non-US NATO countries, and this includes Canada and its plan for submarines. TKMS is talking with Norwegian and German companies to come up with a multi-billion-dollar investment package for Canada. In addition to the submarines – which are starting to feel a bit forgotten in all this – the talks cover possible commitments in rare earths, mining, artificial intelligence and automotive battery production.
Hanwha Ocean is also sweetening the pot. In addition to advertisements in a variety of media, Hanwha just announced that it and Babcock Canada, which is involved in support and sustainment for Canada’s current submarine fleet, are pursuing a joint approach to the submarine acquisition project. The team proposes long-term employment, skills transfer and industrial participation in Canada into its bid. The partnership combines Hanwha Ocean’s shipbuilding experience with Babcock’s sustainment capabilities, local footprint and workforce experience.
It will be a tough decision, which I’m glad I don’t have to make. It needs to be made soon. And I fear that once again the decision will be based, not on getting necessary capability for the RCN quickly, but on the employment ashore or investment in Canada. I understand the government’s motives in this, but let’s hope that a decision is also about the capability of the subs and the timeliness of their arrival.
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
3 thoughts on “Sweetening the Pot for Submarines”
We need to make a decision on this program by end of Q2 2026 in my opinion. Lock it in and get it started before the south starts rallying against us.
Overall diversifying away from the USA would be a major step but one that is necessary in the current climate, and by diversifying away I mean reducing the reliance of systems & weapons.
Does it not make sense to purchase a new submarine fleet that meets the military needs first and as well works with actual NATO allies?
First time poster, please be gentle!
“…let’s hope that a decision is also about the capability of the subs and the timeliness of their arrival.”
I detect a hint of bias in this comment, with which I concur. Unless TKMS can meet/exceed the Hanwha delivery commitment I feel that their bid will fall short.
Notwithstanding the differences between the two platforms, we needed these submarines yesterday.
I appreciate the time interoperability/crewing/technical concerns and can only trust that the RCN/DND bods will cover them.
I do note with interest that the Hanwha/Korean bid has recently been silent about the offer of 155mm SP arty and the investment in maintenance facilities for the subs in Canada, apart from the Babcock partnership. Clarity on this front would be useful.
Regardless, it is heartening to see decades of neglect of the CAF getting some well-deserved attention of the government of the day, regardless of political stripe.
Respectfully submitted,
P