Replacing the Subs

[Czech_pivo]

I wonder how different the reaction to the sub split fleet would be if we had already awarded for 8x 212's for the traditional SSK role, scheduled to come online between 2034 and 2042, and the "split" was an operationally driven decision to get 4x KSIII's between 2032 and 2035 in order to:

• get more boats in the water/ retire the Victoria's faster
• obtain the KSIII with it's vertical launch tubes as a distinct strategic capability for Arctic sovereignty, a quasi "Boomer"

Noah talked about the need for 4 sub maintenance facilities simply due to the fact that the German sub uses non-magnetic steel and the SK one does. According to him you cannot place 1 sub type in the facility of the other without serious implications to the viability of the non-magnetic subs. This makes it basically a non-starter.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Noah talked about the need for 4 sub maintenance facilities simply due to the fact that the German sub uses non-magnetic steel and the SK one does. According to him you cannot place 1 sub type in the facility of the other without serious implications to the viability of the non-magnetic subs. This makes it basically a non-starter.

Except in the given scenario it wouldn't be a non-starter, it would be a 3rd maintenance facility as an expensive and inconvenient accepted cost of 4 more boats, much much earlier, with a novel land and long range strike capability.

 

[OldSolduer]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2029564434574893076

Stephen Fuhr reiterates that despite rumours, the federal govt is not going to be doing a split fleet. It is increasingly sounding like there might be a semi-rogue party somewhere high in govt continually pushing to split up every contract.

I have a point:

I think I have a point. In the Operational Planning Process the plans people usually presented three COAs. Two viable and one throwaway.

This, I think, is the throwaway.

 

[MilEME09]

I have a point:

I think I have a point. In the Operational Planning Process the plans people usually presented three COAs. Two viable and one throwaway.

This, I think, is the throwaway.

probably, Ive said it before but Im not sure how we can not pick the koreans when they can deliver multiple subs before the Germans even give us one

 

[Czech_pivo]

probably, Ive said it before but Im not sure how we can not pick the koreans when they can deliver multiple subs before the Germans even give us one

Especially true when the Frigates start needing to be retired and the CDC's are still just a tantalizing fantasy.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think we all got a blunt reminder at how effective a sub can be. That might lean the decision makers to who can provide the fastest.

 

[MilEME09]

I have a great idea,a subs for LNG deal now that our west coast terminal is online.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2029540942026567717

 

[suffolkowner]

100% true statement.
What about taking your opinion and leaking it out to the press?

maybe thats all intended too?
whos the leaker?

 

[DBNSG]

I think we all got a blunt reminder at how effective a sub can be. That might lean the decision makers to who can provide the fastest.

Or terrify the "Canada does not do sneaky" things crowd.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Or terrify the "Canada does not do sneaky" things crowd.

Hmmmm
If an Iranian sub had done this to a USN surface ship, there would an awful lot of smug and satisfied smiles in Ottawa and the pressure would be on for 50 of the damned things all made in Sweden.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Reprimanded by who? Presenting a different opinion in the pmo or cabinet shouldnt be discouraged

Well now there’s a military police investigation into the F35 leaks, perhaps it will lead to the leaky submarine thesis.

 

[OldSolduer]

Or terrify the "Canada does not do sneaky" things crowd.

Who are fucking idiots.

Excuse my bluntness but if sneaky gets the job done with minimal casualties to us…be ultra sneaky

 

[calculus]

Very interesting Go Bold interview with Rear-Admiral Chris Robinson re Canada and submarines:

 

[Cloud Cover]

That was a very good interview. Thanks for sharing.

 

[lenaitch]

Reprimanded by who? Presenting a different opinion in the pmo or cabinet shouldnt be discouraged

Voicing an opinion, even a contrary one, inside your workplace is one thing; particularly if said workplace has an established level of information security and confidentiality. Carrying that discussion - even just your part of it - into the public realm without permission, well . . .

 

[suffolkowner]

Voicing an opinion, even a contrary one, inside your workplace is one thing; particularly if said workplace has an established level of information security and confidentiality. Carrying that discussion - even just your part of it - into the public realm without permission, well . . .

View attachment 98822

except we dont know who leaked it or even if it was without permission. If all the above true then yeah sure, maybe. Ottawa being well known for its watertightness

 

[lenaitch]

except we dont know who leaked it or even if it was without permission. If all the above true then yeah sure, maybe. Ottawa being well known for its watertightness

True; although it does seem like an odd trial balloon/deliberate leak but I'm not into 4D political chess.

 

[GR66]

Very interesting Go Bold interview with Rear-Admiral Chris Robinson re Canada and submarines:

Interesting comment around the 40:15 mark where the interviewer is rhyming off the types of weapon systems that are available on modern submarines and says "there's certainly ballistic missiles...Canada's not looking for that" to which RAdm Robinson responds "they're not".

I wonder if this is simply a reflection of the official RFP requirements for the program or if the program office actually doesn't see any need for our future subs for that capability given our expected mission set? How might this impact the decision on which of the bids is selected?

 

[Underway]

I have a point:

I think I have a point. In the Operational Planning Process the plans people usually presented three COAs. Two viable and one throwaway.

This, I think, is the throwaway.

Never present a throwaway COA. Ever. That's bad planning (as I found out at a very inoportune moment in my career, lesson learned... lol). Though sometimes your third COA looks very similar to one of the other two.

Interesting comment around the 40:15 mark where the interviewer is rhyming off the types of weapon systems that are available on modern submarines and says "there's certainly ballistic missiles...Canada's not looking for that" to which RAdm Robinson responds "they're not".

I wonder if this is simply a reflection of the official RFP requirements for the program or if the program office actually doesn't see any need for our future subs for that capability given our expected mission set? How might this impact the decision on which of the bids is selected?

No, Canada isn't looking for ballistic missiles, but we are looking for land attack capability. If that takes the form of a ballistic missile.... then here we are. It might look more like cruise missiles instead.

 

[OldSolduer]

Never present a throwaway COA. Ever. That's bad planning (as I found out at a very inoportune moment in my career, lesson learned... lol). Though sometimes your third COA looks very similar to one of the other two.

I agree - it smacks of laziness and not thinking things through.

We learn more from failure than success - and I think the CAF is on that train right now.