- Reaction score
- 1,772
- Points
- 1,060
clearly you're new hereThat's really the problem. Its going to be 2025 before they even get a contract signed. And with billions on the line you don't want to get this to wrong.
clearly you're new hereThat's really the problem. Its going to be 2025 before they even get a contract signed. And with billions on the line you don't want to get this to wrong.
FIFY.That's really the problem. It’s going to be 2035 before they even get a contract signed. And with billions on the line you don't want to get this to wrong.
As you so rightly mentioned. The number of companies that can deliver in a decade can be counted on one hand with fingers to spare. Ask them as to what and when they can deliver and what support they can provide to build up our abilty to maintain the subs after purchase. Then look at the offerings, decide from what capabilities are on the table that most closely match our wants and needs and go with that offering, with minimal Canadianzation. My guess is the South Koreans will be the most flexible and willing to sweeten the pot with some sort of industrial offsets.That's really the problem. Its going to be 2025 before they even get a contract signed. And with billions on the line you don't want to get this to wrong.
I think you're going to be shocked on this one. The RCN is clearing the deck on the requirements, right down to I'll have what she's having. Now that being said election cycle can easily get in the way....FIFY.
I think its time to do a part by part analysis of some of the options out there. I'm going to start with KSS III. Then 212CD from Germany. Along with my completely biased opinions!My guess is the South Koreans will be the most flexible and willing to sweeten the pot with some sort of industrial offsets.
That’s the “Grim Reaper” of procurement…Now that being said election cycle can easily get in the way....
I am interested in seeing this. I am a fan of submarines....but have no wish to be on one.I think you're going to be shocked on this one. The RCN is clearing the deck on the requirements, right down to I'll have what she's having. Now that being said election cycle can easily get in the way....
I think its time to do a part by part analysis of some of the options out there. I'm going to start with KSS III. Then 212CD from Germany. Along with my completely biased opinions!
I've been on sub tours of Sturgeon class, LA class and Victoria class. When I went on the Victoria class my friend told me to put a fake name on the sign in sheet so the Sub fleet wouldn't be able to find the interested party...I am interested in seeing this. I am a fan of submarines....but have no wish to be on one.
And here I thought the Press gang was a pub on Prince Street.I've been on sub tours of Sturgeon class, LA class and Victoria class. When I went on the Victoria class my friend told me to put a fake name on the sign in sheet so the Sub fleet wouldn't be able to find the interested party...
I am interested in seeing this. I am a fan of submarines....but have no wish to be on one.
Bigger ships do not necessarily require bigger crews.I do not know much about subs, or warships. But I can see the numbers and I realize our Navy will have to really up their recruiting skills.
The new ships will be in serious of crews, bigger ships require bigger crews. 12 subs will need a larger crew selection.
Need numbers to be seriously increased to staff and crew. Training schools, will it be Canadian schools or are we going to need to use other NATO schools to train crews?
But sounds great today, makes the Canadian government look like they are being serious. But tomorrow when the money is due, will it be there?
If it requires a redesign then we aren't buying a MOTS, we're buying something and changing it (again) and that adds time and cost.Hopefully they can be equipped with Mk 48 torpedoes.
My opinion is we should be going with the 212CD. Here's why.I look forward to your thoughts on the matter.
Tomahawk would be that missile. New Mark V tomahawk has longer range and a naval strike version is a shorter range but does go out to 500km (similar to the Korean ballistic missile). Again, changes mean cost and time. The K-VLS might not even be able to take tomahawks even with a refit.Is there not the same efficiencies to be had with having the same land attack missile as River Class? Would also simplify fires planning.
I'm goint there with my next review. Pros and cons there as well. If we did get the 212CD it would probably be the 212CD (E) (E for expeditionary, the same submarine they bid for the Dutch program).My opinion is we should be going with the 212CD
I love this idea and didn't know that is what the Germans and Norwegians were selling. Certainly Canada works with the Germans on things like Anti-torpedo torpedo's.Why's that a benefit for Canada? One, it means that we can start training on those boats very soon, long before we even have any of our own boats. We can start the recruiting process now, and start building the core of the newer, larger Canadian submarine force so that it's ready as the boats start coming on-line.