The race to replace Canada’s aging submarine fleet has caught significant attention, marked by an aggressive advertising campaign from South Korean manufacturer Hanwha and unusual solicitations from the Canadian government. The procurement process, lasting two years, has displayed an unexpected emphasis on marketing rather than technical specifications of the submarines in contention.
As the Liberal government prepares to announce its decision ahead of the July NATO summit, it plans to select a supplier for up to 12 submarines, a contract valued in the tens of billions of dollars. Hanwha, aiming to become the fourth-largest defense exporter globally, has launched a substantial advertising blitz across Canada, featuring its KSS-III submarine. Ads have been seen in airports and on television and streaming platforms far removed from coastal regions, catching even the attention of rival bidders.
Oliver Burkhard, CEO of competing bidder ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS), expressed astonishment at Hanwha’s marketing strategy, noting that such visibility is uncommon in submarine procurement, which typically centers on operational capabilities rather than public-facing promotions. Burkhard’s firm and other traditional European submarine manufacturers have generally relied on a more discreet approach, aiming their campaigns directly at government stakeholders.
Hanwha’s strategy, as articulated by its Canadian CEO Glenn Copeland, is geared towards building brand recognition in North America, a market where the company is relatively unknown. The firm is leveraging its ads not only to attract attention from the public but also to engage government officials, indicating initial positive responses from various authorities.
While Hanwha touts its established capabilities—pointing to its existing submarines used by the Korean navy, including one that visited Esquimalt, B.C., in May—the competition also features TKMS's latest model, the 212CD, which boasts advanced engineering and a design intended for reduced sonar detectability. The 212CD is currently in development, with orders from NATO nations like Germany and Norway, emphasizing interoperability as a key selling point.
The contest is reportedly very close, with defense analysts echoing the sentiment that it could tilt in favor of either bidder. Paul Mitchell, a professor of defense studies, remarked that Hanwha has aggressively pursued this project to the extent that it is, in essence, “theirs to lose.” Hanwha’s proposition of a rapid delivery timeline—four subs operational by 2035 and one per year thereafter—has compelled TKMS to adjust its own schedule to remain competitive.
Experts note the differing tactical capabilities of the two submarines, with the KSS-III allowing for vertical launch systems for ballistic and cruise missiles, whereas the TKMS submarine focuses on interoperability and language compatibility with NATO allies, factors deemed significant for collaboration in training and maintenance.
Canada’s procurement process has been atypical over the past two years, as the federal government has altered standard practices to expedite what is potentially the largest military acquisition in the country’s history. An unexpected extension of the bid deadline was made, and the industry minister publicly suggested that bidders could offer an automotive manufacturing initiative in Canada as part of their proposals—a move that led to Hanwha suggesting a joint venture for military vehicle production.
The competitive landscape is described as complex, with significant economic implications along with strategic military considerations influencing Canada’s decision. Retired naval officer Darren Hawco highlighted that such a large-scale procurement comes with heightened expectations regarding its geopolitical ramifications and economic potential for Canada.
Both Hanwha and TKMS have demonstrated a unique approach to courting Ottawa, with Hanwha taking the lead in public engagement while TKMS adopts a more traditional, low-profile tactic. The choice between the bidders hinges not only on submarine capabilities but also on the perceived value of the economic benefits and innovative partnerships presented in their submissions. In the end, the decision may come down to nuanced differences rather than sheer performance metrics.
