Pretty sure Poland got a deal to manufacture them in Poland. They want to make their own industry too.

I have seen that is one of the types under consideration, but I have a few reasons to think it is poorly suited to the stated goals of the procurement as I have read it.

• It is a coastal defence boat, it is roughly 1/2 the tonnage of the KSS-III type from Korea. This limits it’s capabilities in the large patrol areas Canada is looking to operate. Being designed to operate primarily in the Baltic and other bodies of water off European coasts, it is less well adapted to the large expanses of the Pacific, where Canada will be looking for deployments.

-While the technology transfer is a positive value for the potential contract, my understanding is that Korea is also open to this type of structure. More importantly, from my reading of the procurement, the goal is to focus on an “off-the-shelf” approach. The focus will be on acquiring vessels rapidly from the existing manufacturer with minimal specific changes for Canadian service. Hanwa Ocean, the builder, has moved over the past months to begin working with Canadian partners to get the process underway https://babcockcanada.com/babcock-and-hanwha-ocean-sign-a-technical-cooperation-agreement-for-the-canadian-patrol-submarine-project/ . This readiness to move quickly could shave years off the time needed to get the first hull in service.

-Due to it’s smaller size and coastal defence role, the type 214 does not have VLS on board. This is a significant miss in capability, I have some armchair geopolitical reasons for that which I’ll blather about in a moment, but generally this limits the mission types the submarine can accomplish. It would likely lead to Canada deploying ROK developed cruise and ballistic missiles giving the boats a whole new mission envelope that would allow greater impact if supporting shore defences against landing for example.

Into the “just my opinion man” section, or the even more of my opinion I guess! We are at a transitional state in Canada, and it’s a state we share most closely with our allies in the Pacific. It isn’t possible to ignore the recent SCOTUS ruling in the US. After listening to federal lawyers, and seeing the dissenting views from the justices, America is only a democracy insofar as nobody is currently using the unrestricted personal authority granted by the highest court. Continuing to base our sovereignty and continued liberal democracy on the support of a nation in that political situation is very shortsighted. ROK and Japan are two other nations that may be feeling a similar concern. Without a large entity and a geographical cluster like the EU to rely on, we are nations that have over-relied on the US for protection, that always has come at a cost of policy pressure and whatnot, but how will that pressure be wielded going forward? As a platform, the KSS-III type allows for options in the future which may seem very far away or outside of the Canadian mindset. Ultimately, it is a stealthy patrol submarine, which in a geopolitical pinch, can provide Canada with the only continuously effective deterrence known to prevent loss of sovereignty. Canada helped develop nuclear weapons, and operated them until 1984. In my opinion the world is moving in a direction that could leave us very alone and vulnerable to multiple larger authoritarian states, we could ramp up and spend billions to equip more units and build defences, but none of that brings us to parity. Citizens in ROK recently responded to polling indicating a majority support the development of nuclear deterrent there. Obviously I don’t think this will happen, but I do think that Canada would be very wise to acquire systems going forward that diversify our sources away from potentially untrustworthy nations. Also, keep options open. Shit’s not going well.

I’m not aware of the US selling their subs to anyone. They had a partial tech-sharing program with the UK a while back.