Replacing the Subs

[Nvlgzr]

It has quite a few people tilting that way, but unfortunately is not in the specs.

My limited understanding of the SOR is that it’s weighted as a jobs program not a weapons program.

 

[GR66]

The VLS has me tilting SK.

Makes sense to have a SLBM capability already in place if you were to someday decide you want/need a nuclear capability...

 

[MilEME09]

Topshee strikes again, I'll note the koreans have offered a sub for training

 

[NavyShooter]

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....

 

[Underway]

My limited understanding of the SOR is that it’s weighted as a jobs program not a weapons program.

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.

 

[YZT580]

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.

 

[Underway]

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.

Even know what? That they need domestic sustainment? That they know how to operate submarines? Not sure what you're driving at.

 

[Lumber]

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.

The Navy WAS more specific in its requirements. You just haven't seen that list of requirements.

 

[YZT580]

Even know what? That they need domestic sustainment? That they know how to operate submarines? Not sure what you're driving at.

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

 

[Underway]

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

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.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Or rite requirements in such precise and specific terms that the only system that meets the requirements is the one the brass had decided in advance that it wanted ... because they like the looks or the neighbours had the same.

 

[Czech_pivo]

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.

You mean like how the Army specified how a certain artillery piece needed to go at a very certain speed, which effectively took out a few of the main contenders?

 

[Furniture]

Or rite requirements in such precise and specific terms that the only system that meets the requirements is the one the brass had decided in advance that it wanted ... because they like the looks or the neighbours had the same.

Spent some time in the RCAF?