Subject: If Canada picks KSS-III for CPSP, should Canadian River-class Destroyer project consider possibility to integrate Hyunmoo-3 instead of the USA Tomahawk in River Class destroyer?
Possibly this speculation of mine could be better posted instead under the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) Program instead of being under the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project thread ... but I decided to post it here. I speculate the Canadian Navy is already considering/thinking of this?
And speculate is the operative word here - this is a very speculative post.
One of the under-discussed advantages of the Hanwha KSS-III Batch-II offer is that its 10-cell K-VLS already fires the Chonryong SLCM — which is simply the submarine-encapsulated version of the Hyunmoo-3C land-attack cruise missile currently in service on Sejong-the-Great-class destroyers and KDX-IIs.
Key points:
- Same warhead, same turbofan, same guidance (INS+GPS+TERCOM/DSMAC), same ~1,000–1,500+ km range family.
- Only real differences are the canister and minor launch sequencing — parts commonality is ~90–95 %.
- Unit cost estimates put Hyunmoo-3/Chonryong in the ~$1.0–1.5 M USD range (indigenous mass production) vs $1.8–2.2 M USD for Tomahawk Block V/Va (export pricing).
River-class (CSC) will have 24 strike-length Mk 41 VLS cells. Integrating foreign missiles into Mk 41 has been done before — Japan did it with Type 07 VL-ASROC, Australia is doing it with JSM, and further to the Mk41 VLS, the ExLS adapter may be specifically designed for this. A Hyunmoo-3 canister adapter may be a relatively modest development program (speculate to be $100–400 M CAD total, spread over several years, possibly with heavy South Korean co-funding to sweeten the submarine deal).
Benefits of a unified Hyunmoo-3/Chonryong fleet (if KSS-III batch-2 chosen for Canada):
- Single missile type across submarines and surface combatants → massive savings in training, simulators, spares, software updates, and magazine stocks.
- No U.S. export approval drama (Tomahawk on a non-nuclear diesel-electric boat would be precedent-setting and slow).
Lower per-round cost than Tomahawk, potentially offsetting most or all of the integration bill.
Sovereign supply chain — no risk of Washington withholding missiles or updates during a crisis.
Potential Downsides:
- Hyunmoo-3 has slightly shorter maximum range than Tomahawk Block V in some configurations, and no current anti-ship variant (though ROK is working on one).
- fitting adapters in River Class Mk41 VLS for Hyunmoo-3 would reduce capacity of Mk41 VLS for other types of missiles.
- might have issues with
Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) commonality with USN? (speculation by me)
- the Aegis-derived CMS 330 software likely will need to be programmed, tested, and certified to:
- Recognize the Hyunmoo-3 code from the canister.
- Execute the South Korean-specified launch sequence.
- Monitor and manage the power/arming sequence unique to the Hyunmoo-3.
- may go against current established Canadian naval thinking, for Canada to consider a different non-USA weapon in the River Class Mk41 VLS.
Given that Canada has never actually bought Tomahawk for CSC yet (still no DSCA notification as of Nov 2025), given the current political view to minimize USA procurement, and given the Canadian political appetite for offensive strategic weapons likely remains low, standardizing on the Korean missile family may be the cheaper, faster, lower-risk path — especially if Hanwha is willing to throw in River-class integration as part of a CPSP win.
But I hope it is something Canada considers now as I speculate (and speculate is the operative word), it may be relevant (ie cost to build adapter for River Class Mk41 VLS) to any price negotiations with South Korea if KSS-III batch-2 is chosen.
