Canadian Defence News

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, suds said:

I can understand your concerns.  But, for example... under DARPA initiatives, Northrup Grumman has developed the Manta Ray drone. An uncrewed underwater vehicle (UUV) with almost full autonomy. A 'fire and forget' weapon that  has only one task... to try and sink its target whether ship or submarine. If unsure about it's target, it communicates near the surface via satellite with a controller that gives it the ok. After its task is completed its usefulness is terminated. Israel is also working on something quite similar known as the 'blue whale' system. And this I'm afraid is only the beginning.

I don’t know about either of these systems specifically but my first thought is that are intended to operate under the guidance a crewed “mothership” of some (whether sub, ship or aircraft” that can switch kill mode on or off and designate those targets in the first place   Unless there’s some outright war with a free-fire zone where subs can simply sink ships at will (unheard of nowadays) there usually needs to be a human in the kill chain authorizing a ship to be sunk. 

[suds]

11 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

I don’t know about either of these systems specifically but my first thought is that are intended to operate under the guidance a crewed “mothership” of some (whether sub, ship or aircraft” that can switch kill mode on or off and designate those targets in the first place   Unless there’s some outright war with a free-fire zone where subs can simply sink ships at will (unheard of nowadays) there usually needs to be a human in the kill chain authorizing a ship to be sunk. 

Sounds reasonable to me bud. These 'killer drones' are going to completely change the ways in which wars will be fought. Interesting times we live in, eh?

[Army Guy]

On 9/6/2025 at 11:13 PM, suds said:

Sounds reasonable to me bud. These 'killer drones' are going to completely change the ways in which wars will be fought. Interesting times we live in, eh?

Drones like any weapon system today are being developed at light speed, and with every new system come shortly after a counter....it all becomes another button on the control panel that activates a stream of counter measures...like tanks, now thought to be obsolete, due to cheap anti tank missiles,  then came laser warner's, automatic smoke / foil dispensers, explosive panels, now APS and the latest APS that can deflect solid penetrators. And with todays drone threat tanks are starting to be armed with larger caliber auto cannons, like 30 mm cannon and radar which are cost effective anti drone systems...Making tanks once again lethal on the battle field...

 

 

[eyeball]

I'd rather see AI take over warfare.

It won't be long until it decides settling differences over a game of chess is more productive and less wasteful than blowing shit up.

I guess it would take all the fun out of it but...good.

[Aristides]

On 9/5/2025 at 3:11 PM, suds said:

I've always supported the procurement of decent submarines to protect Canadian waters. But lately, I'm not so sure anymore. In 5 or 10 years once AI really kicks in, what risk will be assessed to manned submarine crews against underwater killer drones? Even today, Hamas has some sort of them at their disposal. Will they be effective enough to make manned submarine crews obsolete? Maybe we could become leaders in anti submarine drone warfare technology and fill our waters with hundreds of them. Something to consider in my opinion. 

Those anti submarine killer drones will come from other subs in the Arctic. No reason ours can't have them as well and one advantage electric subs have always had over nukes is they are quieter. 

[I am Groot]

All this stuff about drones and missiles reminds me of a video I saw on the Germans' perspective of the Allied attack on Normandy and into France in WW2. It was an avalanche of guns, shells, tanks, ships and aircraft, manufactured in such numbers that Germany couldn't hope to compete by the American factory complex.

What happens if there is a war today and the factories are all on the other side? Because China can churn out drones in their millions. It doesn't need permission, it doesn't need to worry about long approval processes and environmental studies and the like. It simply does it. Western warships all have anti-missile defenses, but they're designed to fight off one or two missiles. What do they do when fifty come in at the same time? Or a hundred?

The Americans have a couple of hundred very expensive long-range armed drones. The rest of NATO has considerably less. The Russians and Ukrainians are flinging hundreds of drones and missiles at each other daily. The Chinese are building missiles and drones like nobody's business. China is building ships at four times the rate of the US. They are doing the same with missiles, and their drone tactics revolve around 'swarms' of AI drones launched together at a target. I don't see how ships can defend against that. And I think it will be years before any Western navy even begins to adapt.

And that's just the air drones. Once you add in floating drones it would be a nightmare to deend against.

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

All this stuff about drones and missiles reminds me of a video I saw on the Germans' perspective of the Allied attack on Normandy and into France in WW2. It was an avalanche of guns, shells, tanks, ships and aircraft, manufactured in such numbers that Germany couldn't hope to compete by the American factory complex.

What happens if there is a war today and the factories are all on the other side? Because China can churn out drones in their millions. It doesn't need permission, it doesn't need to worry about long approval processes and environmental studies and the like. It simply does it. Western warships all have anti-missile defenses, but they're designed to fight off one or two missiles. What do they do when fifty come in at the same time? Or a hundred?

The Americans have a couple of hundred very expensive long-range armed drones. The rest of NATO has considerably less. The Russians and Ukrainians are flinging hundreds of drones and missiles at each other daily. The Chinese are building missiles and drones like nobody's business. China is building ships at four times the rate of the US. They are doing the same with missiles, and their drone tactics revolve around 'swarms' of AI drones launched together at a target. I don't see how ships can defend against that. And I think it will be years before any Western navy even begins to adapt.

And that's just the air drones. Once you add in floating drones it would be a nightmare to deend against.

The fact that drones are relatively cheap to produce should hopefully be an advantage. At the cost of $13 billion for a single aircraft carrier, that costs $1 billion annually to operate, US could blacken the sky with cheap drones.   The western defence industry doesn’t return your phone calls for anything less than a billion so we’ll still  spend the same amount of money but for massive swarms of product. 

South Korean shipyard sweetens its submarine sales pitch to Canada
 

OTTAWA -- One of two finalists in the competition to build the Royal Canadian Navy's next fleet of submarines is pitching multiple industrial partnerships and economic benefits in the hopes of sealing the deal.

Hanwha Oceans is floating various industrial-technological benefit collaborations that could involve investments in Canadian lithium-ion battery production, liquefied natural gas, aerospace, steel, critical minerals mining and sustainable energy.

Although the firm is keeping its cards to its chest on the specifics -- part of an unsolicited proposal it made to the Canadian government in July -- the company promises more details in the coming weeks and insists the investments would be significant.

"We've talked about everything from energy co-operation to battery co-operation to ... other areas where Hanwha is particularly strong, like infantry-fighting vehicles and howitzers," said Hanwha Global Defense CEO Michael Coulter in an interview with The Canadian Press.

"We know that there's a requirement in the Canadian military for howitzers. The offering has evolved beyond submarines because what the Canadian government is looking for is beyond submarines. It's true industrial capacity in Canada."

The company points to what it calls a "friend-shoring" initiative which saw it open an armoured vehicle plant in Geelong, Australia a year ago. The company says roughly 1,000 employees now work there building fighting vehicles and self-propelled howitzers.

It's angling for something similar in Canada. Hanwha has offered to construct two submarine "sustainment" facilities on both coasts and also envisions a manufacturing facility in Canada to build tanks, rockets, howitzers and resupply vehicles.

"On a submarine program, it is a decades-long endeavour to maintain and support that," Coulter said.

He said Hanwha wants "to have the entire life cycle" of the subs, "support, maintenance, all of that," operated "in Canada by Canadians" for "decades to come."

"That is the framework of how we're thinking as a company right now," he said.

Hanwha hosted a delegation from Canada earlier this week that included Stefanie Beck, deputy minister of defence. The Canadians toured the company's Geoje shipyard in South Korea and took a close-up look at the submarine model Hanwha vows is Canada's best option.

Prime Minister Mark Carney is expected to visit the yard next month. On Aug. 26, he visited a submarine facility in Kiel, Germany owned by a rival bidder.

Every time Hanwha has a meeting with Canadian officials, it appears to update its game plan for selling Canada on the KSS-III, its lithium-ion powered sub model. The South Korean navy currently has three of them in the water.

Hanwha, which touts itself as South Korea's seventh-largest business group, is known for its aggressive marketing and sales and is pursuing a global expansion strategy. It's a regular fixture at the annual CANSEC defence expo in Ottawa, where it has advertised the subs for several years now.

South Korea is hungry to grow its domestic defence industry and has pushed hard to expand exports. The country has been on a war footing for decades because of its menacing neighbour to the north, and is seeking to move itself away from overreliance on the U.S. for defence materiel.

The country, which was the eighth-largest arms exporter in the world in 2023, wants to become the fourth-largest by 2027, according to an internal National Defence review obtained through access to information law.

The top four arms exporters currently are the U.S., France, Russia and China.

"Successive (Korean) governments have relied on a mix of financial inducements, flexible joint-production arrangements in host countries, 'package deals' that include non-military products and co-ordinated diplomatic support to boost sales," the National Defence document said.

The other contender for the sub contract is the German firm ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems, or TKMS.

It's pitching Canada on its track record as one of the world's longest-established sub builders, having supplied some 70 per cent of NATO's conventional sub fleet.

TKMS is also attempting to sell Canada on interoperability with allies -- the same argument used by supporters of Canada's purchase of American F-35 fighter jets.

Germany and Norway have together ordered a dozen of TKMS's 212 CD (Common Design) submarines, the model the firm is trying to sell to Canada.

TKMS also says it can beat Canada's tight 2035 deadline for its first sub delivery.

Hanwha, meanwhile, is also focusing its sales pitch on Ottawa's need for speed.

The Canadian navy's four Victoria Class subs will be out of commission within a decade. Carney has pointed out that only one of them is currently in working order.

Hanwha says that if Canada signs a contract next year, it can leverage its massive shipyard capacity -- totalling five kilometres square -- to build four KSS-III submarines by 2035, with the first to be delivered 2032.

It says it could send Canada a new sub every year after the initial four are delivered, giving it a full fleet of 12 by 2043.

The company claims this could allow Canada to avoid $1 billion on repairs by retiring the Victoria subs early. Hanwha says the 12 subs would cost in the ballpark of $20-24 billion, which does not include the infrastructure to service them.

The Carney government is moving fast on the sub file. It only announced the procurement a year ago and has already ruled out most of the competition. Procurement projects this massive tend to move very slowly through the Canadian bureaucracy.

Navy Commander Admiral Angus Topshee even suggested in a recent television interview that it's possible for Ottawa to arrive at a decision by the end of the year.

"It appears that the Canadian government is very intent on moving quickly and moving differently," Coulter said. "We're a little bit in uncharted waters, so our intent is just to stay very close to the customer, understand as best we can what they are looking for and to be committed to that."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 11, 2025.
 

https://nationalnewswatch.com/2025/09/11/south-korean-shipyard-sweetens-its-submarine-sales-pitch-to-canada

[herbie]

Have no doubt Boeing and the like will be making $100,000,000 drones soon enough.

 

[I am Groot]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

The fact that drones are relatively cheap to produce should hopefully be an advantage. At the cost of $13 billion for a single aircraft carrier, that costs $1 billion annually to operate, US could blacken the sky with cheap drones.   The western defence industry doesn’t return your phone calls for anything less than a billion so we’ll still  spend the same amount of money but for massive swarms of product. 

China has plans to produce over one million kamikaze drones by next year. I don't think US production is even remotely as large.

Ukraine produced 2 million last year and hopes to double that this year. Drones get used up fast in combat.

[BeaverFever]

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

South Korean shipyard sweetens its submarine sales pitch to Canada
 

OTTAWA -- One of two finalists in the competition to build the Royal Canadian Navy's next fleet of submarines is pitching multiple industrial partnerships and economic benefits in the hopes of sealing the deal.

Hanwha Oceans is floating various industrial-technological benefit collaborations that could involve investments in Canadian lithium-ion battery production, liquefied natural gas, aerospace, steel, critical minerals mining and sustainable energy.

Although the firm is keeping its cards to its chest on the specifics -- part of an unsolicited proposal it made to the Canadian government in July -- the company promises more details in the coming weeks and insists the investments would be significant.

"We've talked about everything from energy co-operation to battery co-operation to ... other areas where Hanwha is particularly strong, like infantry-fighting vehicles and howitzers," said Hanwha Global Defense CEO Michael Coulter in an interview with The Canadian Press.

"We know that there's a requirement in the Canadian military for howitzers. The offering has evolved beyond submarines because what the Canadian government is looking for is beyond submarines. It's true industrial capacity in Canada."

The company points to what it calls a "friend-shoring" initiative which saw it open an armoured vehicle plant in Geelong, Australia a year ago. The company says roughly 1,000 employees now work there building fighting vehicles and self-propelled howitzers.

It's angling for something similar in Canada. Hanwha has offered to construct two submarine "sustainment" facilities on both coasts and also envisions a manufacturing facility in Canada to build tanks, rockets, howitzers and resupply vehicles.

"On a submarine program, it is a decades-long endeavour to maintain and support that," Coulter said.

He said Hanwha wants "to have the entire life cycle" of the subs, "support, maintenance, all of that," operated "in Canada by Canadians" for "decades to come."

"That is the framework of how we're thinking as a company right now," he said.

Hanwha hosted a delegation from Canada earlier this week that included Stefanie Beck, deputy minister of defence. The Canadians toured the company's Geoje shipyard in South Korea and took a close-up look at the submarine model Hanwha vows is Canada's best option.

Prime Minister Mark Carney is expected to visit the yard next month. On Aug. 26, he visited a submarine facility in Kiel, Germany owned by a rival bidder.

Every time Hanwha has a meeting with Canadian officials, it appears to update its game plan for selling Canada on the KSS-III, its lithium-ion powered sub model. The South Korean navy currently has three of them in the water.

Hanwha, which touts itself as South Korea's seventh-largest business group, is known for its aggressive marketing and sales and is pursuing a global expansion strategy. It's a regular fixture at the annual CANSEC defence expo in Ottawa, where it has advertised the subs for several years now.

South Korea is hungry to grow its domestic defence industry and has pushed hard to expand exports. The country has been on a war footing for decades because of its menacing neighbour to the north, and is seeking to move itself away from overreliance on the U.S. for defence materiel.

The country, which was the eighth-largest arms exporter in the world in 2023, wants to become the fourth-largest by 2027, according to an internal National Defence review obtained through access to information law.

The top four arms exporters currently are the U.S., France, Russia and China.

"Successive (Korean) governments have relied on a mix of financial inducements, flexible joint-production arrangements in host countries, 'package deals' that include non-military products and co-ordinated diplomatic support to boost sales," the National Defence document said.

The other contender for the sub contract is the German firm ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems, or TKMS.

It's pitching Canada on its track record as one of the world's longest-established sub builders, having supplied some 70 per cent of NATO's conventional sub fleet.

TKMS is also attempting to sell Canada on interoperability with allies -- the same argument used by supporters of Canada's purchase of American F-35 fighter jets.

Germany and Norway have together ordered a dozen of TKMS's 212 CD (Common Design) submarines, the model the firm is trying to sell to Canada.

TKMS also says it can beat Canada's tight 2035 deadline for its first sub delivery.

Hanwha, meanwhile, is also focusing its sales pitch on Ottawa's need for speed.

The Canadian navy's four Victoria Class subs will be out of commission within a decade. Carney has pointed out that only one of them is currently in working order.

Hanwha says that if Canada signs a contract next year, it can leverage its massive shipyard capacity -- totalling five kilometres square -- to build four KSS-III submarines by 2035, with the first to be delivered 2032.

It says it could send Canada a new sub every year after the initial four are delivered, giving it a full fleet of 12 by 2043.

The company claims this could allow Canada to avoid $1 billion on repairs by retiring the Victoria subs early. Hanwha says the 12 subs would cost in the ballpark of $20-24 billion, which does not include the infrastructure to service them.

The Carney government is moving fast on the sub file. It only announced the procurement a year ago and has already ruled out most of the competition. Procurement projects this massive tend to move very slowly through the Canadian bureaucracy.

Navy Commander Admiral Angus Topshee even suggested in a recent television interview that it's possible for Ottawa to arrive at a decision by the end of the year.

"It appears that the Canadian government is very intent on moving quickly and moving differently," Coulter said. "We're a little bit in uncharted waters, so our intent is just to stay very close to the customer, understand as best we can what they are looking for and to be committed to that."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 11, 2025.
 

https://nationalnewswatch.com/2025/09/11/south-korean-shipyard-sweetens-its-submarine-sales-pitch-to-canada

The 2 subs on offer have very interesting differences. It’s definitely a distinct choice. 
 

The German/Norwegian sub is smaller, more stealthy and allegedly more technologically advanced. It is also more maneuverable in shallow waters and under arctic ice and requires less crew. 
 

The Korean sub being larger can stay at sea for up to 2 weeks longer,  making it more effective at blue water operations and open ocean control. It  allegedly carries almost twice as many torpedoes and special forces teams, and has ballistic missile silos that can theoretically be modified for cruise or anti-ship missiles or drones and offers proven existing tech 

Both seem to have similar submerged endurance. 

[Aristides]

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/sep/14/aukus-australian-submarines-vulnerable-new-technology

Interesting article. AI is going to make defence decisions more complex and difficult.

[Aristides]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

The 2 subs on offer have very interesting differences. It’s definitely a distinct choice. 
 

The German/Norwegian sub is smaller, more stealthy and allegedly more technologically advanced. It is also more maneuverable in shallow waters and under arctic ice and requires less crew. 
 

The Korean sub being larger can stay at sea for up to 2 weeks longer,  making it more effective at blue water operations and open ocean control. It  allegedly carries almost twice as many torpedoes and special forces teams, and has ballistic missile silos that can theoretically be modified for cruise or anti-ship missiles or drones and offers proven existing tech 

Both seem to have similar submerged endurance. 

So what do we need? If our subs are intended primarily for coastal and arctic use, the German/Norwegian might be the best choice. I don't see much of a blue water requirement other than hunting Russian subs in the North Atlantic.

[BeaverFever]

4 minutes ago, Aristides said:

So what do we need? If our subs are intended primarily for coastal and arctic use, the German/Norwegian might be the best choice. I don't see much of a blue water requirement other than hunting Russian subs in the North Atlantic.

Given that we’re also trying to get in on the rearm Europe project I bet we’ll go with German. The Korean missile capability and extra torpedoes would be cool but not high on our priorities AFAIK. Too bad the German sub has more limited special operations capabilities though, that’s probably something we would actually want and use. 

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Aristides said:

AI is going to make defence decisions more complex and difficult.

Or AI could make them simple and easy. What if our AI and their AI get in touch and ask what they're knocking themselves out for and give their heads a shake instead?

What if it's love at first sight?

 

[I am Groot]

16 hours ago, Aristides said:

So what do we need? If our subs are intended primarily for coastal and arctic use, the German/Norwegian might be the best choice. I don't see much of a blue water requirement other than hunting Russian subs in the North Atlantic.

Why would we need subs for coastal defence? Whatever subs could attack, planes from shore could do it better. The most likely use of these subs would be joint NATO defense against China and Russia. The Korean subs are more adaptable to different circumstances, and could be armed with anti-ship or ship-to-shore missiles. Perhaps more importantly, the Koreans could build them years earlier and have committed to building maintenance/repair facilities on both our coasts. The Germans are already backlogged with orders.

[BeaverFever]

On 9/14/2025 at 12:53 PM, I am Groot said:

Why would we need subs for coastal defence? Whatever subs could attack, planes from shore could do it better.

Submarines provide stealth and persistence. Aircraft cannot remain on station for weeks at a time and are easily seen on radar. Warships have sophisticated anti-aircraft systems but even the most advanced US warships have challenges detecting and defeating submarines especially conventional submarines which run quieter than nuclear submarines.  A Swedish conventional submarine HSwMS Gotland loaned to USA even repeatedly “sunk” USS Ronald Regan aircraft carrier without being detected during in a recent US evaluation exercise.  Also the German/Norwegian sub would probably be better in the Baltic and Mediterranean or Black Sea than the KSS  sue to its greater stealth and maneuverability.  

PS forgot to add to my earlier comment that the German/Norwegian sub has NATO interoperability baked in to its core design whereas with the Korean sub this will have to be a retrofit. Not sure how simple/complex that is in this case, sometimes this involves complicated software and hardware configurations for secure datalinks, etc. 

Edited September 16, 2025 by BeaverFever

[BeaverFever]

 

German or South Korean subs? Ottawa's pick will hinge on economic windfall

Spending on major military projects must boost economy, says Carney's defence procurement secretary of state

Daniel Leblanc, Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: Sep 16, 2025 4:00 AM EDT | Last Updated: 9 hours ago

 

Prime Minister Mark Carney has pledged to invest $9 billion this year to strengthen Canada's military capability — with a significant amount of that funding dedicated to training and salaries. But he plans to spend far more in the years to come, including through major equipment purchases. (Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press)

Ottawa will favour the pitch that creates the most Canadian jobs when it decides whether to award a contract for a dozen new submarines to a German or a South Korean consortium, the government's point person for military procurement says.

The comments from Liberal MP Stephen Fuhr highlight the Carney government's attempts to build up the Canadian industrial base while ramping up defence spending to levels unprecedented in recent history.

Ottawa is hoping that money will protect jobs at home — especially in sectors such as steel and aluminum that have been hit by American tariffs — and create new ones.

Fuhr said both submarine proposals have been green-lit by the Royal Canadian Navy, and that the choice will come down to cost, delivery schedule and, crucially, the foreign companies' respective plans for a domestic windfall.

 

Liberal MP Stephen Fuhr is the secretary of state for defence procurement. He said Canada's pick for a military submarine manufacturer would need to provide economic benefits to this country. (Justin Tang/The Canadian Press)

"They meet the military requirements," said Fuhr, secretary of state for defence procurement, in an interview.

Now, Fuhr said they must compete to provide "the best economic outcomes for Canada."

The former CF-18 pilot said it is "very, very important that we make sure that we stimulate our economy when we spend this enormous amount of money in defence."

Prime Minister Mark Carney announced in August that the government would pick between Germany's ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems and South Korea's Hanwha Ocean Ltd. for the submarine contract, which is expected to be worth more than $20 billion.

New vessels are expected to start arriving in Canada in the mid-2030s, with the choice of the winning bidder set to influence Canada's military and industrial alliances in Europe or Asia for decades.

Military spending boost

Carney has promised to meet NATO's defence spending target of two per cent of GDP this year with a $9-billion boost to the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).

By 2035, the NATO benchmark will increase to five per cent of GDP — 3.5 per cent direct military investment and 1.5 per cent in defence infrastructure.

Fuhr said his focus on economic benefits will continue with other major military acquisitions, such as munitions, surveillance airplanes, drones, artillery and ships for the navy and coast guard.

 

Carney has said meeting new NATO spending targets could cost $150 billion per year. (Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press)

Those benefits could come in the form of manufacturing or assembling jobs in Canada, or getting the winning bidders to invest in civilian production in the country.

He said Ottawa wants to be "less reliant on our southern neighbour" in the context of a realignment of alliances.

"I have to make sure the CAF gets what it needs to do the jobs that the government asks them to do. I have to stimulate the Canadian economy in a way that it just really hasn't been stimulated before in decades and decades," Fuhr said.

Procurement bottleneck

The hundreds of billions in promised military spending over the coming years comes with a centralized procurement process. The task is currently the shared responsibility of several departments: National Defence, Public Services and Procurement, Innovation and the Treasury Board.

Critics argue this system bogs down projects with competing demands from different departments and agencies, and has an embedded aversion to risk that leads to constant delays.

"We need to recognize that there is not always a perfect solution to our needs and that we can't totally eliminate all risks during a procurement," said Gaëlle Rivard Piché, executive director of the Conference of Defence Associations.

Fuhr said the current system is "just not capable" of acting at the "speed and magnitude" that the government envisions.

He said details on a new defence procurement agency will start rolling out in a few weeks, with a new defence industrial policy established by the end of the year.

 

The Carney government is reviewing its order for 88 F-35s from U.S. manufacturer Lockheed-Martin. (Joseph Barron/The Associated Press)

Fuhr is at the centre of a lobbying frenzy, having met with officials from over 40 companies and interest groups in recent months and touring facilities across the country.

"There are lots of contracts to be awarded in the coming months and years, so it's important for companies to position themselves now in order to showcase what they have to offer," said lobbyist Hugues Théorêt of the Sandstone Group.

"There is a lot of interest and buzz around the defence sector."

Competing subs

Both the Koreans and the Germans pledge to build sub maintenance facilities in Canada, but much depends on the direction of the federal government, they said.

The consortiums said Canadian maintenance facilities would be separate from the purchase of the boats and would require additional investment on the part of the federal government.

 

A model of a Hanwha KSS-III submarine is seen at a defence industry expo in Ottawa this summer. The Korean company wants to build 12 of the subs for Canada. (Justin Tang/The Canadian Press)

The two submarine proposals are significantly different. The South Korean KSS-III, pitched through a partnership between Hanwha Ocean and Hyundai Heavy Industries, is bigger than its German-Norwegian rival.

It displaces about 3,600 tonnes, while the Type 212CD proposed by ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems  is 2,800 tonnes in size.

Both the KS-III and the Type 212CD are diesel-electric attack submarines, capable of firing torpedoes and submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

 

The German-designed, Norwegian-partnered Type 212CD is perhaps the most well known and heavily marketed of the contenders for Canada's submarine contract. (ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems)

Rather than relying on traditional lead-acid batteries, both boats draw their power from lithium batteries, which allow for greater cruising speed and longer submerged times. Both proposals claim their boats can remain submerged for three weeks or more — a key requirement for operations in Canada's Arctic.

The approximate cost of the South Korean proposal is $20 billion to $24 billion for 12 submarines, according to Hanwha officials who spoke to CBC News last spring. The cost of the German-Norwegian proposal is unknown.

The Koreans are offering to deliver four submarines by 2035, when the Royal Canadian Navy expects to begin retiring the current Victoria-class boats. The Germans say there's the possibility one Type 212CD would be ready for Canada within that timeframe.

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-submarine-contract-industry-1.7634711

[BeaverFever]

13 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 

 

German or South Korean subs? Ottawa's pick will hinge on economic windfall

Spending on major military projects must boost economy, says Carney's defence procurement secretary of state

Daniel Leblanc, Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: Sep 16, 2025 4:00 AM EDT | Last Updated: 9 hours ago

 

Prime Minister Mark Carney has pledged to invest $9 billion this year to strengthen Canada's military capability — with a significant amount of that funding dedicated to training and salaries. But he plans to spend far more in the years to come, including through major equipment purchases. (Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press)

Ottawa will favour the pitch that creates the most Canadian jobs when it decides whether to award a contract for a dozen new submarines to a German or a South Korean consortium, the government's point person for military procurement says.

The comments from Liberal MP Stephen Fuhr highlight the Carney government's attempts to build up the Canadian industrial base while ramping up defence spending to levels unprecedented in recent history.

Ottawa is hoping that money will protect jobs at home — especially in sectors such as steel and aluminum that have been hit by American tariffs — and create new ones.

Fuhr said both submarine proposals have been green-lit by the Royal Canadian Navy, and that the choice will come down to cost, delivery schedule and, crucially, the foreign companies' respective plans for a domestic windfall.

 

Liberal MP Stephen Fuhr is the secretary of state for defence procurement. He said Canada's pick for a military submarine manufacturer would need to provide economic benefits to this country. (Justin Tang/The Canadian Press)

"They meet the military requirements," said Fuhr, secretary of state for defence procurement, in an interview.

Now, Fuhr said they must compete to provide "the best economic outcomes for Canada."

The former CF-18 pilot said it is "very, very important that we make sure that we stimulate our economy when we spend this enormous amount of money in defence."

Prime Minister Mark Carney announced in August that the government would pick between Germany's ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems and South Korea's Hanwha Ocean Ltd. for the submarine contract, which is expected to be worth more than $20 billion.

New vessels are expected to start arriving in Canada in the mid-2030s, with the choice of the winning bidder set to influence Canada's military and industrial alliances in Europe or Asia for decades.

Military spending boost

Carney has promised to meet NATO's defence spending target of two per cent of GDP this year with a $9-billion boost to the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).

By 2035, the NATO benchmark will increase to five per cent of GDP — 3.5 per cent direct military investment and 1.5 per cent in defence infrastructure.

Fuhr said his focus on economic benefits will continue with other major military acquisitions, such as munitions, surveillance airplanes, drones, artillery and ships for the navy and coast guard.

 

Carney has said meeting new NATO spending targets could cost $150 billion per year. (Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press)

Those benefits could come in the form of manufacturing or assembling jobs in Canada, or getting the winning bidders to invest in civilian production in the country.

He said Ottawa wants to be "less reliant on our southern neighbour" in the context of a realignment of alliances.

"I have to make sure the CAF gets what it needs to do the jobs that the government asks them to do. I have to stimulate the Canadian economy in a way that it just really hasn't been stimulated before in decades and decades," Fuhr said.

Procurement bottleneck

The hundreds of billions in promised military spending over the coming years comes with a centralized procurement process. The task is currently the shared responsibility of several departments: National Defence, Public Services and Procurement, Innovation and the Treasury Board.

Critics argue this system bogs down projects with competing demands from different departments and agencies, and has an embedded aversion to risk that leads to constant delays.

"We need to recognize that there is not always a perfect solution to our needs and that we can't totally eliminate all risks during a procurement," said Gaëlle Rivard Piché, executive director of the Conference of Defence Associations.

Fuhr said the current system is "just not capable" of acting at the "speed and magnitude" that the government envisions.

He said details on a new defence procurement agency will start rolling out in a few weeks, with a new defence industrial policy established by the end of the year.

 

The Carney government is reviewing its order for 88 F-35s from U.S. manufacturer Lockheed-Martin. (Joseph Barron/The Associated Press)

Fuhr is at the centre of a lobbying frenzy, having met with officials from over 40 companies and interest groups in recent months and touring facilities across the country.

"There are lots of contracts to be awarded in the coming months and years, so it's important for companies to position themselves now in order to showcase what they have to offer," said lobbyist Hugues Théorêt of the Sandstone Group.

"There is a lot of interest and buzz around the defence sector."

Competing subs

Both the Koreans and the Germans pledge to build sub maintenance facilities in Canada, but much depends on the direction of the federal government, they said.

The consortiums said Canadian maintenance facilities would be separate from the purchase of the boats and would require additional investment on the part of the federal government.

 

A model of a Hanwha KSS-III submarine is seen at a defence industry expo in Ottawa this summer. The Korean company wants to build 12 of the subs for Canada. (Justin Tang/The Canadian Press)

The two submarine proposals are significantly different. The South Korean KSS-III, pitched through a partnership between Hanwha Ocean and Hyundai Heavy Industries, is bigger than its German-Norwegian rival.

It displaces about 3,600 tonnes, while the Type 212CD proposed by ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems  is 2,800 tonnes in size.

Both the KS-III and the Type 212CD are diesel-electric attack submarines, capable of firing torpedoes and submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

 

The German-designed, Norwegian-partnered Type 212CD is perhaps the most well known and heavily marketed of the contenders for Canada's submarine contract. (ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems)

Rather than relying on traditional lead-acid batteries, both boats draw their power from lithium batteries, which allow for greater cruising speed and longer submerged times. Both proposals claim their boats can remain submerged for three weeks or more — a key requirement for operations in Canada's Arctic.

The approximate cost of the South Korean proposal is $20 billion to $24 billion for 12 submarines, according to Hanwha officials who spoke to CBC News last spring. The cost of the German-Norwegian proposal is unknown.

The Koreans are offering to deliver four submarines by 2035, when the Royal Canadian Navy expects to begin retiring the current Victoria-class boats. The Germans say there's the possibility one Type 212CD would be ready for Canada within that timeframe.

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-submarine-contract-industry-1.7634711

A correction to the article above, the German/Norwegian sub cannot fore ballistic missiles. The designers are working on ways to fire some limited types of small missiles out of the torpedo tube such as the NSM anti-ship missile (which has a limited land attack capability) and a unique wire-guided anti-aircraft “self defence missile” (which to me sounds impractical) but even if they do manage to figure it out I think it will have limited practical use beyond maybe the NSM as a viable anti-ship weapon. But even so I imagine that in order to carry those missiles it would have carry fewer torpedoes which at 12 is already lower that the KSS reported ability to carry 20 torpedoes PLUS missiles. 

Edited September 16, 2025 by BeaverFever

[I am Groot]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

German or South Korean subs? Ottawa's pick will hinge on economic windfall

Spending on major military projects must boost economy, says Carney's defence procurement secretary of state

So as usual, it won't be what's best for the military, but which offer is best for regional economic improvement. And, without doubt, which companies in Liberal ridings will benefit the most.

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

So as usual, it won't be what's best for the military, but which offer is best for regional economic improvement. And, without doubt, which companies in Liberal ridings will benefit the most.

Perhaps, except so far it seems both meet the requirements set out by Navy. These are the final 2 from a longer list that included another German model, a Swedish model and a Spanish model, AFAIK all eliminated because they didn’t meet the endurance requirements.  

And major shipbuilding can only happen in one of 3 locations, all of which lean Liberal. You can’t really build warships in landlocked prairies, rural Canada, or the blue Toronto suburbs where the conservative strongholds are. 

Edited September 16, 2025 by BeaverFever

[Army Guy]

7 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Perhaps, except so far it seems both meet the requirements set out by Navy. These are the final 2 from a longer list that included another German model, a Swedish model and a Spanish model, AFAIK all eliminated because they didn’t meet the endurance requirements.  

And major shipbuilding can only happen in one of 3 locations, all of which lean Liberal. You can’t really build warships in landlocked prairies, rural Canada, or the blue Toronto suburbs where the conservative strongholds are. 

DO you think the military made that list....All the military did was give a spec sheet or what they were looking for...Some civilian sent those specs out globally and gathered up those competitors...Politicians will get to pick who wins whether or not that company product meets all the specs or not...I could give you dozens of examples of purchases that have been made that did not meet all the specs and yet was chosen over more qualified bids...LSVW comes to mind right off the top...

Hopefully they are built in Korea, on time , and built right.......Canada has NO experience building subs, building in Canada always cost 10 times as much as their bid is, just look at Irving's bid for frigates, Sh1t Canada can't even repair subs the right way....... 22 Bil for 3 boats, UK built Aircraft carriers for those prices...here in Canada built in Canada means the pigs will feed god...

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

A correction to the article above, the German/Norwegian sub cannot fore ballistic missiles. The designers are working on ways to fire some limited types of small missiles out of the torpedo tube such as the NSM anti-ship missile (which has a limited land attack capability) and a unique wire-guided anti-aircraft “self defence missile” (which to me sounds impractical) but even if they do manage to figure it out I think it will have limited practical use beyond maybe the NSM as a viable anti-ship weapon. But even so I imagine that in order to carry those missiles it would have carry fewer torpedoes which at 12 is already lower that the KSS reported ability to carry 20 torpedoes PLUS missiles. 

Why would we need a sub with land attack options, our frigates already have that capability. The air defense ability comes in handy when being hunted by either fix wing or rotary wing anti sub aircraft...Not a navy guy but i'm sure if your being hunted it would be a nice option...

Most Subs can have torpedoes loaded at sea via a sub tender...I not sure if Canada even has one of those ....and while 12 torps does not sound like a lot....most ships only need one to sink it, exception is a carrier...Stealth would be a much better investment can't sink it if you cant find it....in my opinion maybe some navy guy on here can correct me...

[I am Groot]

This is an interesting write-up on the South Korean offering, not just for subs but artillery, tanks, and other vehicles.

https://noahscornerofrandomstuff.substack.com/p/hanwha-for-canada-hanwhas-package

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

DO you think the military made that list....All the military did was give a spec sheet or what they were looking for...Some civilian sent those specs out globally and gathered up those competitors...Politicians will get to pick who wins whether or not that company product meets all the specs or not...I could give you dozens of examples of purchases that have been made that did not meet all the specs and yet was chosen over more qualified bids...LSVW comes to mind right off the top...

Hopefully they are built in Korea, on time , and built right.......Canada has NO experience building subs, building in Canada always cost 10 times as much as their bid is, just look at Irving's bid for frigates, Sh1t Canada can't even repair subs the right way....... 22 Bil for 3 boats, UK built Aircraft carriers for those prices...here in Canada built in Canada means the pigs will feed god...

I have not read or heard a single suggestion that we somehow left out a qualified contender. We pretty much had every possible AIP sub possible on the initial lost and so far everything suggests it was narrowed to the final 2 based on endurance at sea and submerged endurance, specifically the ability to sail from Esquimalt through the Bering straight, patrol under ice for 3 weeks and return , all without having to resupply. 

There is ZERO plan to build submarines in Canada it’s totally different from shipbuilding and we have zero skills or infrastructure for it. The talk about Canadian benefits refers to ongoing fleet service, onboard equipment and industrial offsets. For example I read that the Korean consortium is dangling a Hyundai battery plant as well as various industrial benefit options for army vehicles. 
 

I am fairly certain that the contract will go to TK however it just makes sense given that NATO interoperability is baked in, we’ve signed on to ReArm Europe and it’s best suited for the primary mission of coastal/arctic patrol even if it’s less effective for other missions. 

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Why would we need a sub with land attack options, our frigates already have that capability. The air defense ability comes in handy when being hunted by either fix wing or rotary wing anti sub aircraft...Not a navy guy but i'm sure if your being hunted it would be a nice option...

Most Subs can have torpedoes loaded at sea via a sub tender...I not sure if Canada even has one of those ....and while 12 torps does not sound like a lot....most ships only need one to sink it, exception is a carrier...Stealth would be a much better investment can't sink it if you cant find it....in my opinion maybe some navy guy on here can correct me...

Well a submarine gives you a stealth strike capability, where the environment is not permissive to surface ships. Granted, the need for Canada to have that capability might currently be limited, but in the age of the drone maybe some day the army will need to call in fires and a submarine is the only platform that can safely be in range. 
 

The self defence missile sounds funny to me because it is currently conceived as wire-guided like an old TOW missile or the old javelin MANPAD with an operator in the sub controlling it with a joystick. It seems to me that the sub would not be able to maneuver when this thing is in action and probably the best bet when being hunted by an enemy aircraft or ship would be to escape and evade, not stick around and mess with this thing. Not to mention they’re still trying to develop it. 

Edited September 17, 2025 by BeaverFever