• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Replacing the Subs

Korean Times reporter perspective....

"The trend that disturbs me most was the emergence of non-combat elements such as job creation and technology transfer as core factors in determining who will win the bid."


Canada being Canada

1771291119778.jpeg
 
The Koreans are showing their inexperience and naivety regarding very large scale and long term international defence sales, substantial offsets and pot sweeteners are common place everywhere and Canada is no different. Korea is a relatively new player in the international arms export game, with a lot of their sales being smaller scale but still impressive land system exports. There is a distinct difference between the sheer scale of effort and money at play between a few hundred armoured vehicles or rocket artillery going to Australia or Poland, and setting up a nation to nation cooperative effort to procure, build, operate and maintain a fleet of potentially 12 large conventionally powered submarines.

It sounds to me like sour grapes on the part of the Koreans, who just want to sell us something off the technical merits of the system alone instead of getting down into the nitty gritty of govt to govt procurement competitions. We're looking at something in the ballpark of a $60B~ procurement here, you don't get to win on technical specs alone.
 
Serious question: what do we have or what are we looking at that is useable for undersea rescue?
 

Apparently some Canadians share the same concerns as the Korean reporter.
There may be some related concerns, but I would say they are “the same.” Canada’s approach is trying to balance a proportionately rapid build of defence capabilities while simultaneously seeking to increase financial prosperity in the context of a significant extant economic threat.

Wendy Gilmour captures that duality in the article:
“At the moment because of Canada's fiscal situation, there is a desire to use the investment in the reconstitution of the Canadian Forces as a driver for economic prosperity and to address some of the difficulties our economy is having because of the loss of the American market. We see in some other nations that they are very focused on delivering defense capability. The danger in Canada is that that message gets diffused.”
 
Serious question: what do we have or what are we looking at that is useable for undersea rescue?
We have nothing and currently nothing is being publicly discussed. Realistically, with a dozen subs on both coasts, we should be looking at a recovery vessel on each coast.
 
There may be some related concerns, but I would say they are “the same.” Canada’s approach is trying to balance a proportionately rapid build of defence capabilities while simultaneously seeking to increase financial prosperity in the context of a significant extant economic threat.

Wendy Gilmour captures that duality in the article:


Other nations have persistent reminders that there is a war on. We, in Canada, find it harder to maintain the aim.
 
Back
Top