Great article. As mentioned the export record of TKMS is stellar. This reduces risk compared to Hanwha, where we will be their first export customer.
An additional level of risk the Koreans have created is their intention to launch a nuclear powered sub by the mid 2030’s, right in the middle of their deliveries to Canada (should they be successful).
If we are looking at this as a 50 year partnership we would be buying what for them would become their 2nd tier of submarines, with their first tier being nuclear powered. Where is the upgrade path? Even as industrious as the South Koreans are there is only so much money and expertise to go around, most of their attention will go to the development of their nuclear fleet.
There isn't a fully built 212CD yet infact there may still be changes required during and after the build to make it viable. Seems to me the 212CD is the riskier option. Not to mention the Navy s stated they need a larger submarine than the Victoria's which the 212CD isn't and the fact they have given no timeline for the delivery of the final 8 submarines is really concerning. Even if they could move things around to give us 4 by 2036 that leaves the next 8 delayed even more in order to fill the orders for Germany and Norway that were moved to make that happen. What good is ordering a 12 boat fleet of the first ones delivered are ready for retirement by the time you get the 12th boat? KSS-III is the least risky, larger, delivering a full 12 within a decade of receiving the first boat and most sensible option IMHO.
The kss iii batch 2 hasn't entered service yet either. It is still undergoing testing, so how do you know it presents the lower isk option? Also it was not designed for the arctic meaning the sensors and propulsion might not perform as expected in Canada's primary theater. The cms is not nato compliant and might require more extensive changes or complete replacement in order for the sub to function as part of the nato network. The point is that you really have no idea whether or not the kss-iii is more or less risky.
Lastly tkms is a much more established exporter of submarines. In fact tkms helped to bootstrap the korean sub industry by transferring its tech to South Korea. Kss i and Kss ii are German designs.
The Batch 1 KSS-III is already in service, the difference of adding 4 vls cells and switching to Lithium batteries which South Korea has been working on for years is minimal compared to an entirely different hull design like the 212CD which is not designed for the Arctic at all. Having a newly designed composite outer hull in areas of extreme cold and possibly ice impacts is actually far more dangerous proposition, even the AIP system is a new unknown and any work in Lithium and the safety mechanisms for fire etc.. are far behind those of the South Korean model. Hull mass and weight matters in emergency surfacing through even thin ice and a composite outer hull like the 212CD would be guaranteed wrote off in such a situation. There is no conventional submarine made for operations in the Arctic however the South Korean Navy has implied they have already operated in the area. Germany has not. Again or Navy has recognized that the Victoria's are not large enough for our needs and yet the 212CD isn't really any larger, where as the KSS-III is, that fact won't change. Size matters for crew moral over long deployments as well as emergency surfacing through light ice and having a strong Steel outer hull would be imperative in ice/near ice operations unless everytime you order your sub to operate there, you plan on writing it off.
Decision day is fast approaching and I can’t wait to see how the RCN / Carney reconciles all these data points. I’ve become a little obsessed with this file given its ramifications.
You raise a valid point about surfacing through the ice. I have no idea which sub would fare better in this case, but the larger mass of the KSS III sounds like an advantage on paper. We don't however know if either of the sub's hulls are being strengthened to deal with this requirement
In terms of the lithium-ion batteries, I disagree because TKMS has been working on lithium ion batteries since 2015 (before the Hanwha started). TKMS uses LFP batteries which are more chemically stable than the NMC batteries used by Hanhwa, although the KSS III's batteries are encased in a protective case to prevent thermal runaway. The 212CD's battery system was specifically designed for colder climates, while I would assume the KSS III's battery system was designed for a warmer climate, but again this is speculation and we simply don't know.
Regarding the AIP, yes TKMS has engineered a 4th gen PEM fuel cell system, but saying it is an unknown is again speculation. TKMS and Siemens pioneered the use of pem fuel cells in submarines and Hanwha doesn't have the same amount of experience (including in various climates) with this technology that TKMS does. So it would be speculative to say that Hanwha presents the lower risk option because they simply have less experience with this technology.
Regarding size, the 212CD is larger than the Victoria class (not by much overall), but critically it requires a much smaller crew (30 vs 59). My guess would be that the propulsion and other systems take up less space than those of the Victoria because they are modern (just look at how cluttered the control room of the Victoria is). The KSS III is clearly larger but a significant portion of the hull is dedicated to the VLS system. This means the gain in crew living space is probably much more modest than it would appear. While Hanwha claims that the KSS III can be operated by a crew of 30, the ROKN typically operates it with a crew of around 50. Lastly don't forget that the smaller size of the 212CD makes it more maneuverable and more capable of operating in littoral waters.
Regarding your claim that the ROKN has operated in the Arctic, I don't think this is accurate. They have claimed that the KSS III can operate in the Arctic, but I can't find any evidence that they have. The 212CD was specifically designed with the requirements of the Norwegian navy in mind. While the Norwegian navy does not typically operate under ice, we at least know the sub was designed for the colder waters of the north.
I wonder if the Korean pivot to nuclear has included an invitation to Canada to join the effort as a partner. While that would be a dramatic departure for us to join the program it would loudly annnounce our commitment to fielding a submarine force that was truly capable of delivering the full spectrum of capabilities. I imagine this scenario would include a firm order for 8 conventional kss 3 batch II all delivered by 2039. This would allow time for the appropriate (yes complicated) support infrastructure, certifications and such to be put in place in partnership with the Koreans. The nuclear fleet would likely have synergies with the conventional KSS 3 boat as well. So yeah…..Hanwha wins and the Germans would understand that as a Canadian decision to go nuclear. Oh boy. I know it sounds crazy but what the hell I said it.
The Korean Sub is a better choice , it has a strategic Deterrence in the VLS , the German Sub does not . The German Sub is built for shallow coastal waters of the Baltic Area and its VERY GOOD in that role , its also NOT MEANT for seas with Ice . Believe it or not its AO is NEVER covered in ICE , its stealth covering is expensive to replace and extremely fragile , any contact with ICE will incur massive and expensive Damage . The Korean Sub has a reinforced Hull and a reinforced Sail . If you where just trying to look at Sub vs Sub warfare in Canadian Coastal Waters the German Sub would probably be the Sub for Canada but that means you can throw out NATO Operations across the Atlantic and Pacific Operations with Australia , New Zealand , South Korea and Japan . According to the Canadian Government , The Crown and His Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces , Canada needs a Deep Open Ocean Submarines , this makes the Korean Sub the only choice . Now if you look at the two subs with out the Canadian Context the Koran Sub still beats the German sub in the ability to engage Surface Combatants at 1,000 / 1,500 KM away with the VLS.
The Korean Sub also beats the German Sub in Strategic Deterrence and Strategic Strike with its 10 VLS , the ability to launch Missile systems from under water , undetected , laying waste to an aggressors Military instillations or their city centers is something the German Sub CAN NOT DO . Allies have to understand Canadian Waters are NOT THE BALTIC , they need to understand our Operating conditions and Strategic needs are NOT THE SAME as theirs . With the U.S. pulling subs out of NATO Europe , if OUR ALLIES want Canadian help in that field then the KOREAN SUB is not only the BEST choice , its the only choice . This Best Choice head to head for everything but MAYBE Sub vs Sub direct combat is the Korean sub , The Best Choice according to what CANADA needs its Sub to do is the Korean Sub , The best Choice for Canada to help NATO in the Undersea domain is the Korean Sub .
If Canada picks the German sub , best thing to do is LEAVE NATO , Leave NORAD, declare neutrality , stay out of the Pacific and Atlantic , Stay OUT of Europe , pull everything into Personal National Defence . If Canada wants to do things with Allies in the Indo Pacific and NATO in Europe is needs to act like it and work accordingly , that is VERY clearly the Korean Sub .
I agree with everything except your last paragraph. Regardless of the sub picked, they are both going to be a huge leap in capability to what we currently have.
Great to get some insight on how TKMS views their offering. There is no doubt as to their level of competency combined with a compelling offer which has substantial geopolitical alignment. It’s a compelling bid both on its technical merit (stealth hunter) and its appealing trilateral alliance with trusted partners. Ticks a lot of boxes although I am concerned about Norway and Germany twisting themselves in knots to get us the first boats in what is really a new and unproven design. This often results in problems discovered which need fixes that can delay delivery of what I’m sure will ultimately be an excellent submarine.
Brian clearly favours the Korean sub that’s in the water and brings some advantages such as habitability, greater endurance, payload (if in fact that rcn wants it), and a delivery schedule thats rock solid backed up by Noah’s visit to their otherworldy shipyard. Again a very compelling bid which aligns with our Asia-pacific strategy.
Both meet our requirements. Although not a popular idea with pretty much anyone… I still can’t let go of running a mixed fleet. 8 Korean subs on the west coast spearheading a pacific fleet that also patrols in the Beaufort sea; 8 German subs on the east coast running an Atlantic fleet that patrols its share of the arctic while also working with our Norwegian and German partners. And yes I know separate supply chains, training etc. My thinking is that the industrial offsets and technology transfers from both bids are too great to pass up and would diversify the fleet and add resiliency. The Korean and German subs each offer unique advantages inherent in their design choices. Why not both?
Excellent points on the need for 2 manufacturers. I would go for 8 in the Pacific and maybe 10 in the Atlantic. The US is drawing down its NATO support and there is a need for more capacity in the Atlantic and Arctic especially where crews can be interoperable. The US is now focusing on the Indo-Pacific and western hemisphere and we need to stay interoperable with allies there. Maybe Australia can actually get subs and not promises if they work with us. They seem to be tightly wound with the US, so it could present local political issues. The point being is that our strategic value lies not only in commonality with ourselves, but in high value procurements in commonality with our allies.
Great write up! Thank you. Well worth the wait, kind of seals the deal, if the pedigree, the political trifecta (or potential European 5fecta), the confidence, the PEMFC technology, the NATO CMS, the joint weapon development (CHWT and JSM-SL) the established SCN and SAFE hadn't already.
Yeah…it’s hard to disagree. But damn those Koreans for being so competetive. They badly want us as partners and their offer to share manufacturing tech is really hard to resist. It’s nice to be wanted.
That was a great write up. I'm still a fan of the KS3, but this does a good job of explaining the benefits of the 212cd. While I have a preference, I'll be genuinely excited whichever one we pick. At the same time, I will genuinely regret not picking the other option as well. I'm glad splitting the order is not really a possibility at this point, but I wish we could have our cake and eat it too!
Though I still find myself dreaming about what could have become of the proposed 212CD-E (Expeditionary). Would have been the perfect fit for Canada. Did that ever come up in your conversations with TKMS?
Great article. As mentioned the export record of TKMS is stellar. This reduces risk compared to Hanwha, where we will be their first export customer.
An additional level of risk the Koreans have created is their intention to launch a nuclear powered sub by the mid 2030’s, right in the middle of their deliveries to Canada (should they be successful).
If we are looking at this as a 50 year partnership we would be buying what for them would become their 2nd tier of submarines, with their first tier being nuclear powered. Where is the upgrade path? Even as industrious as the South Koreans are there is only so much money and expertise to go around, most of their attention will go to the development of their nuclear fleet.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/south-korea-aims-launch-first-nuclear-powered-submarine-by-mid-2030s-2026-05-26/
There isn't a fully built 212CD yet infact there may still be changes required during and after the build to make it viable. Seems to me the 212CD is the riskier option. Not to mention the Navy s stated they need a larger submarine than the Victoria's which the 212CD isn't and the fact they have given no timeline for the delivery of the final 8 submarines is really concerning. Even if they could move things around to give us 4 by 2036 that leaves the next 8 delayed even more in order to fill the orders for Germany and Norway that were moved to make that happen. What good is ordering a 12 boat fleet of the first ones delivered are ready for retirement by the time you get the 12th boat? KSS-III is the least risky, larger, delivering a full 12 within a decade of receiving the first boat and most sensible option IMHO.
The kss iii batch 2 hasn't entered service yet either. It is still undergoing testing, so how do you know it presents the lower isk option? Also it was not designed for the arctic meaning the sensors and propulsion might not perform as expected in Canada's primary theater. The cms is not nato compliant and might require more extensive changes or complete replacement in order for the sub to function as part of the nato network. The point is that you really have no idea whether or not the kss-iii is more or less risky.
Lastly tkms is a much more established exporter of submarines. In fact tkms helped to bootstrap the korean sub industry by transferring its tech to South Korea. Kss i and Kss ii are German designs.
The Batch 1 KSS-III is already in service, the difference of adding 4 vls cells and switching to Lithium batteries which South Korea has been working on for years is minimal compared to an entirely different hull design like the 212CD which is not designed for the Arctic at all. Having a newly designed composite outer hull in areas of extreme cold and possibly ice impacts is actually far more dangerous proposition, even the AIP system is a new unknown and any work in Lithium and the safety mechanisms for fire etc.. are far behind those of the South Korean model. Hull mass and weight matters in emergency surfacing through even thin ice and a composite outer hull like the 212CD would be guaranteed wrote off in such a situation. There is no conventional submarine made for operations in the Arctic however the South Korean Navy has implied they have already operated in the area. Germany has not. Again or Navy has recognized that the Victoria's are not large enough for our needs and yet the 212CD isn't really any larger, where as the KSS-III is, that fact won't change. Size matters for crew moral over long deployments as well as emergency surfacing through light ice and having a strong Steel outer hull would be imperative in ice/near ice operations unless everytime you order your sub to operate there, you plan on writing it off.
Decision day is fast approaching and I can’t wait to see how the RCN / Carney reconciles all these data points. I’ve become a little obsessed with this file given its ramifications.
You raise a valid point about surfacing through the ice. I have no idea which sub would fare better in this case, but the larger mass of the KSS III sounds like an advantage on paper. We don't however know if either of the sub's hulls are being strengthened to deal with this requirement
In terms of the lithium-ion batteries, I disagree because TKMS has been working on lithium ion batteries since 2015 (before the Hanwha started). TKMS uses LFP batteries which are more chemically stable than the NMC batteries used by Hanhwa, although the KSS III's batteries are encased in a protective case to prevent thermal runaway. The 212CD's battery system was specifically designed for colder climates, while I would assume the KSS III's battery system was designed for a warmer climate, but again this is speculation and we simply don't know.
Regarding the AIP, yes TKMS has engineered a 4th gen PEM fuel cell system, but saying it is an unknown is again speculation. TKMS and Siemens pioneered the use of pem fuel cells in submarines and Hanwha doesn't have the same amount of experience (including in various climates) with this technology that TKMS does. So it would be speculative to say that Hanwha presents the lower risk option because they simply have less experience with this technology.
Regarding size, the 212CD is larger than the Victoria class (not by much overall), but critically it requires a much smaller crew (30 vs 59). My guess would be that the propulsion and other systems take up less space than those of the Victoria because they are modern (just look at how cluttered the control room of the Victoria is). The KSS III is clearly larger but a significant portion of the hull is dedicated to the VLS system. This means the gain in crew living space is probably much more modest than it would appear. While Hanwha claims that the KSS III can be operated by a crew of 30, the ROKN typically operates it with a crew of around 50. Lastly don't forget that the smaller size of the 212CD makes it more maneuverable and more capable of operating in littoral waters.
Regarding your claim that the ROKN has operated in the Arctic, I don't think this is accurate. They have claimed that the KSS III can operate in the Arctic, but I can't find any evidence that they have. The 212CD was specifically designed with the requirements of the Norwegian navy in mind. While the Norwegian navy does not typically operate under ice, we at least know the sub was designed for the colder waters of the north.
I wonder if the Korean pivot to nuclear has included an invitation to Canada to join the effort as a partner. While that would be a dramatic departure for us to join the program it would loudly annnounce our commitment to fielding a submarine force that was truly capable of delivering the full spectrum of capabilities. I imagine this scenario would include a firm order for 8 conventional kss 3 batch II all delivered by 2039. This would allow time for the appropriate (yes complicated) support infrastructure, certifications and such to be put in place in partnership with the Koreans. The nuclear fleet would likely have synergies with the conventional KSS 3 boat as well. So yeah…..Hanwha wins and the Germans would understand that as a Canadian decision to go nuclear. Oh boy. I know it sounds crazy but what the hell I said it.
The Korean Sub is a better choice , it has a strategic Deterrence in the VLS , the German Sub does not . The German Sub is built for shallow coastal waters of the Baltic Area and its VERY GOOD in that role , its also NOT MEANT for seas with Ice . Believe it or not its AO is NEVER covered in ICE , its stealth covering is expensive to replace and extremely fragile , any contact with ICE will incur massive and expensive Damage . The Korean Sub has a reinforced Hull and a reinforced Sail . If you where just trying to look at Sub vs Sub warfare in Canadian Coastal Waters the German Sub would probably be the Sub for Canada but that means you can throw out NATO Operations across the Atlantic and Pacific Operations with Australia , New Zealand , South Korea and Japan . According to the Canadian Government , The Crown and His Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces , Canada needs a Deep Open Ocean Submarines , this makes the Korean Sub the only choice . Now if you look at the two subs with out the Canadian Context the Koran Sub still beats the German sub in the ability to engage Surface Combatants at 1,000 / 1,500 KM away with the VLS.
The Korean Sub also beats the German Sub in Strategic Deterrence and Strategic Strike with its 10 VLS , the ability to launch Missile systems from under water , undetected , laying waste to an aggressors Military instillations or their city centers is something the German Sub CAN NOT DO . Allies have to understand Canadian Waters are NOT THE BALTIC , they need to understand our Operating conditions and Strategic needs are NOT THE SAME as theirs . With the U.S. pulling subs out of NATO Europe , if OUR ALLIES want Canadian help in that field then the KOREAN SUB is not only the BEST choice , its the only choice . This Best Choice head to head for everything but MAYBE Sub vs Sub direct combat is the Korean sub , The Best Choice according to what CANADA needs its Sub to do is the Korean Sub , The best Choice for Canada to help NATO in the Undersea domain is the Korean Sub .
If Canada picks the German sub , best thing to do is LEAVE NATO , Leave NORAD, declare neutrality , stay out of the Pacific and Atlantic , Stay OUT of Europe , pull everything into Personal National Defence . If Canada wants to do things with Allies in the Indo Pacific and NATO in Europe is needs to act like it and work accordingly , that is VERY clearly the Korean Sub .
I agree with everything except your last paragraph. Regardless of the sub picked, they are both going to be a huge leap in capability to what we currently have.
Great to get some insight on how TKMS views their offering. There is no doubt as to their level of competency combined with a compelling offer which has substantial geopolitical alignment. It’s a compelling bid both on its technical merit (stealth hunter) and its appealing trilateral alliance with trusted partners. Ticks a lot of boxes although I am concerned about Norway and Germany twisting themselves in knots to get us the first boats in what is really a new and unproven design. This often results in problems discovered which need fixes that can delay delivery of what I’m sure will ultimately be an excellent submarine.
Brian clearly favours the Korean sub that’s in the water and brings some advantages such as habitability, greater endurance, payload (if in fact that rcn wants it), and a delivery schedule thats rock solid backed up by Noah’s visit to their otherworldy shipyard. Again a very compelling bid which aligns with our Asia-pacific strategy.
Both meet our requirements. Although not a popular idea with pretty much anyone… I still can’t let go of running a mixed fleet. 8 Korean subs on the west coast spearheading a pacific fleet that also patrols in the Beaufort sea; 8 German subs on the east coast running an Atlantic fleet that patrols its share of the arctic while also working with our Norwegian and German partners. And yes I know separate supply chains, training etc. My thinking is that the industrial offsets and technology transfers from both bids are too great to pass up and would diversify the fleet and add resiliency. The Korean and German subs each offer unique advantages inherent in their design choices. Why not both?
Excellent points on the need for 2 manufacturers. I would go for 8 in the Pacific and maybe 10 in the Atlantic. The US is drawing down its NATO support and there is a need for more capacity in the Atlantic and Arctic especially where crews can be interoperable. The US is now focusing on the Indo-Pacific and western hemisphere and we need to stay interoperable with allies there. Maybe Australia can actually get subs and not promises if they work with us. They seem to be tightly wound with the US, so it could present local political issues. The point being is that our strategic value lies not only in commonality with ourselves, but in high value procurements in commonality with our allies.
Great write up! Thank you. Well worth the wait, kind of seals the deal, if the pedigree, the political trifecta (or potential European 5fecta), the confidence, the PEMFC technology, the NATO CMS, the joint weapon development (CHWT and JSM-SL) the established SCN and SAFE hadn't already.
Yeah…it’s hard to disagree. But damn those Koreans for being so competetive. They badly want us as partners and their offer to share manufacturing tech is really hard to resist. It’s nice to be wanted.
That was a great write up. I'm still a fan of the KS3, but this does a good job of explaining the benefits of the 212cd. While I have a preference, I'll be genuinely excited whichever one we pick. At the same time, I will genuinely regret not picking the other option as well. I'm glad splitting the order is not really a possibility at this point, but I wish we could have our cake and eat it too!
Great article!
Though I still find myself dreaming about what could have become of the proposed 212CD-E (Expeditionary). Would have been the perfect fit for Canada. Did that ever come up in your conversations with TKMS?
Thanks for,the article. I think this is the Submarine for Canada.