My limited understanding of the SOR is that it’s weighted as a jobs program not a weapons program.
Replacing the Subs
- Thread starter Spencer100
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 6,283
- Points
- 1,160
Makes sense to have a SLBM capability already in place if you were to someday decide you want/need a nuclear capability...The VLS has me tilting SK.
- Reaction score
- 6,343
- Points
- 1,120
One of the SK subs was scheduled to visit Canada in the next couple of months, wasn't it? Imagine if they sent it over to start training crews right away....? That'd be a stunning tour de force....
- Reaction score
- 8,712
- Points
- 1,210
It's clearly a weapons program. But given that both submarines meet the requirements the RCN wants for combat capability then you need other factors to outscore the other guy. It's a tight race.
If the navy was more specific in its requirements then maybe there would more differential between bids based on platform performance. But I think broad requirements were better for this one. As well the service and support portion is a huge part of the bid. It may look only like "jobs" but it's more about capability sustainment and domestic sustainment to keep that combat capability operational.
Not being sarcastic at all: does the navy even know? It has never had a modern fleet of submarines to work with and plan around. The Canadian Navy is entering into a whole new world of possibilities. This is good.
- Reaction score
- 8,712
- Points
- 1,210
Even know what? That they need domestic sustainment? That they know how to operate submarines? Not sure what you're driving at.
- Reaction score
- 3,994
- Points
- 1,190
The Navy WAS more specific in its requirements. You just haven't seen that list of requirements.
Your second paragraph suggested that the navy wasn't specific enough with respect to operational requirements/platform performance. With no disrespect intended, I suggested that the navy wasn't really certain of what they could get/ask for because they have never been in a position to solicit a modern, capable system. They knew that it needed to be suitable for operating under ice and they knew the endurance they were seeking. Weapon systems and the like varied from boat to boat and since we were ordering off the shelf they sort of left that up to the mfg. to a certain extent. Did they know what to ask for, I suspect that they knew what they wanted but were worried about shutting out a potential supplier by being too specific. Also from a negotiation standpoint it made the mfg. come to them in a constant up-bidding which could end up giving us a whole lot more than the basic 12 hulls. My comment originated from yours.
I just read Lumber's response which more or less negates my entire thought pattern so I will just leave it here as a this is what I was thinking but I am out to lunch in the wrong direction
- Reaction score
- 8,712
- Points
- 1,210
No, the navy reviewed all the submarines with their requirements in mind. Took the two that met them. The requirements for operational abilities were specific enough but broad enough. For example they didn't tell anyone how to get the indiscretion rate they wanted (AIP, batteries whatever) just that they wanted a specific number.
That's what I mean by not specific. You don't want to write the requirements such that no one can meet them or you lock out creative solutions to problems for example.
