It is not a great development that foreign advertising is playing such a large role in our procurement decisions. It's easy enough to say we should just pick the best option for our needs, but that's often just punting the decision to the requirement writing stage. Do we want VLS on our subs? If so, the Korean boat is the only option. Do we care that the steel the German boat is made of is better? If so, again just write the requirements and you've made your choice.
A lot of the public debate has been marketing hyping up a handful of very discrete capability points that the marketing highlights. Often those are true, or true enough, but cherrypicked to favor the preferred choice. It's too much to hope for that the public debate would get really deep into the analysis, but it serves us poorly to have defense contractor circulating talking points to the entire public that becomes a substitute for that analysis.
We would do well to explore some rules around bidding that would help serve the public interest in a productive conversation.
I do think that the S. Korean subs advantage is its capability to be a missile platform. Despite their wide spread use in every conflict, Canada seems hesitant to get into the missile world. The recent announcement that we are buying HIMARS was a sea change in that thinking. Our subs should have that capability as well.
The TKMS 212 CD does offer missile capability using its torpedo tubes for launching cruise missiles such as the Tomahawk. Norwegian defence firm Kongsberg is developing submariine-launched versions of their Naval Strike Missile and Joint Strike Missile.
Good, balanced piece. ROK will get over the loss and is probably already lining up its next opportunities (EVs?), not least with Canadian behind-the-scenes assurances that it wasn't "personal". Going outside NATO was always a long shot, frankly. They'll get it, even if they may make a bit of a public moue for domestic consumption purposes.
Not shocked. The South Korean bid offered a lot of MOUs while the German bid had more supply chain integration. Sections of the submarines will be made by Marmen in Canada - this will be key to speeding up production, Valbruna Steel in Welland making high tech non magnetic submarine steel, Finkl Steel will be making stainless steel, there will be torpedo production in Canada, etc.
The TKMS bid was also less risky, with a long list of export customers and NATO integration. As well, South Koreans announcing recently that they want to launch a nuclear sub by 2035 added risk to their bid as resources would have to be allocated between the new nuclear fleet and the KSS III they wanted to sell to us.
Having deployed soldiers to Afghanistan in green camouflage and Iltis jeeps, we should never forget that whenever the world gets awful, the Government necessarily sends the military into harms way with whatever it has.
The RCN concluded that either of the submarines on offer meets its minimum mandatory requirements. That’s not to say they’re equal.
The Government’s social contract with the military is that it should leverage its defence procurement processes to extract best value with the military first in mind. A strong, Canadian defence industrial base is an enabler for achieving that outcome over the long term, but let’s hope it wasn’t the overriding consideration.
Carney’s announcement gave credit to both solutions and thanked both companies for their excellent work. It was a well written announcement and preserved option space for future requirements. One may jump to thoughts of the next tank as Poland already operates a SK tank within NATO.
In the meantime the TKMS product promises to be an excellent platform and transitions the RCN to a balanced submarine & destroyer navy.
12 submarines is definitely a big step up if we decide to go all the way in acquiring that many. Also, I hope Korea doesn’t feel burnout with relations with Canada. They are a great exporter and have many other things Canada will potentially purchase. I hope this doesn’t worsen relations.
The tortoise framing fits well. One thread worth pulling on: you note a Europe-oriented PM "probably didn't hurt" — I'd put it a bit more strongly. Coming right before the NATO summit, and alongside SAFE participation and the new NATO defence bank, this reads less like a one-off procurement call and more like a pattern of Canada deliberately deepening its European alignment.
Which, as you rightly say, makes the hard part still ahead. Strategic alignment can shape a decision; it doesn't build twelve boats on time. Godspeed indeed.
I'd love that Ottawa contractor's name, I'm going to need it after the Canada Day flooding.
DM me
It is not a great development that foreign advertising is playing such a large role in our procurement decisions. It's easy enough to say we should just pick the best option for our needs, but that's often just punting the decision to the requirement writing stage. Do we want VLS on our subs? If so, the Korean boat is the only option. Do we care that the steel the German boat is made of is better? If so, again just write the requirements and you've made your choice.
A lot of the public debate has been marketing hyping up a handful of very discrete capability points that the marketing highlights. Often those are true, or true enough, but cherrypicked to favor the preferred choice. It's too much to hope for that the public debate would get really deep into the analysis, but it serves us poorly to have defense contractor circulating talking points to the entire public that becomes a substitute for that analysis.
We would do well to explore some rules around bidding that would help serve the public interest in a productive conversation.
I do think that the S. Korean subs advantage is its capability to be a missile platform. Despite their wide spread use in every conflict, Canada seems hesitant to get into the missile world. The recent announcement that we are buying HIMARS was a sea change in that thinking. Our subs should have that capability as well.
The TKMS 212 CD does offer missile capability using its torpedo tubes for launching cruise missiles such as the Tomahawk. Norwegian defence firm Kongsberg is developing submariine-launched versions of their Naval Strike Missile and Joint Strike Missile.
Good, balanced piece. ROK will get over the loss and is probably already lining up its next opportunities (EVs?), not least with Canadian behind-the-scenes assurances that it wasn't "personal". Going outside NATO was always a long shot, frankly. They'll get it, even if they may make a bit of a public moue for domestic consumption purposes.
Not shocked. The South Korean bid offered a lot of MOUs while the German bid had more supply chain integration. Sections of the submarines will be made by Marmen in Canada - this will be key to speeding up production, Valbruna Steel in Welland making high tech non magnetic submarine steel, Finkl Steel will be making stainless steel, there will be torpedo production in Canada, etc.
The TKMS bid was also less risky, with a long list of export customers and NATO integration. As well, South Koreans announcing recently that they want to launch a nuclear sub by 2035 added risk to their bid as resources would have to be allocated between the new nuclear fleet and the KSS III they wanted to sell to us.
Made by Marmen ... at its plant near Trois-Rivières, Quebec 😲 Welding's their thing, but ... submarines?
Wow. I'd never have thought they'd be into that. GOOD FOR THEM!
Having deployed soldiers to Afghanistan in green camouflage and Iltis jeeps, we should never forget that whenever the world gets awful, the Government necessarily sends the military into harms way with whatever it has.
The RCN concluded that either of the submarines on offer meets its minimum mandatory requirements. That’s not to say they’re equal.
The Government’s social contract with the military is that it should leverage its defence procurement processes to extract best value with the military first in mind. A strong, Canadian defence industrial base is an enabler for achieving that outcome over the long term, but let’s hope it wasn’t the overriding consideration.
Carney’s announcement gave credit to both solutions and thanked both companies for their excellent work. It was a well written announcement and preserved option space for future requirements. One may jump to thoughts of the next tank as Poland already operates a SK tank within NATO.
In the meantime the TKMS product promises to be an excellent platform and transitions the RCN to a balanced submarine & destroyer navy.
12 submarines is definitely a big step up if we decide to go all the way in acquiring that many. Also, I hope Korea doesn’t feel burnout with relations with Canada. They are a great exporter and have many other things Canada will potentially purchase. I hope this doesn’t worsen relations.
The tortoise framing fits well. One thread worth pulling on: you note a Europe-oriented PM "probably didn't hurt" — I'd put it a bit more strongly. Coming right before the NATO summit, and alongside SAFE participation and the new NATO defence bank, this reads less like a one-off procurement call and more like a pattern of Canada deliberately deepening its European alignment.
Which, as you rightly say, makes the hard part still ahead. Strategic alignment can shape a decision; it doesn't build twelve boats on time. Godspeed indeed.