Replacing the Subs

[Retired AF Guy]

Not even his regular job. Excellent content, and because he is the only person doing what he does, his rolodex of (anonymous) contacts is spectacular. He needs an acronym page though. Sometimes tough to read when you don't know the difference between a LUV, LUVW, LUTV etc...

He does:

Glossary of Relevant Terms

Resource

www.truenorthstrategicreview.ca

 

[calculus]

I'm thinking there must be serious talks about a "split" contract, but perhaps an uneven split (something like 8 and 4). The Carney government is very interested in developing strong ties with both Europe (and Germany in particular), as well as SK. Apparently the Navy's objections have become more muted to this suggestion in recent months.

I don't think anyone on this forum would be surprised, especially given the drama with the fighters...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

No, not surprised.

And I will probably be hanged for heresy here, but split fleets are not as hard to manage in the Navy as in the Air Force. Sometimes, we even manage fleets of one or two.

 

[MacNav63]

No, not surprised.

And I will probably be hanged for heresy here, but split fleets are not as hard to manage in the Navy as in the Air Force. Sometimes, we even manage fleets of one or two.

And at the risk of compounding the heresy, assuming there we buy the full 12, could a split fleet also not make some sense. The vertical launch capability of the SK boats might be a valuable strategic asset but not one that we need for a all 12 boats or for patrolling our own approaches?

 

[GR66]

Well...if you went with a split fleet you should at least get 8 and 8. That way you could have a quiet sub-hunter and a missile boat active on each coast at all times.

I wonder if you could talk Hanwha and TKMS into having a shared maintenance facility on each coast? If they teamed up they would dominate the conventional submarine market.

 

[HavokFour]

I'm thinking there must be serious talks about a "split" contract, but perhaps an uneven split (something like 8 and 4). The Carney government is very interested in developing strong ties with both Europe (and Germany in particular), as well as SK. Apparently the Navy's objections have become more muted to this suggestion in recent months.

I don't think anyone on this forum would be surprised, especially given the drama with the fighters...

The Navy might also just be quite because the decision of one or the other may have long been made already, as it's been rumored over the last couple weeks.

We'll know in the next week or two.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I'm thinking there must be serious talks about a "split" contract, but perhaps an uneven split (something like 8 and 4). The Carney government is very interested in developing strong ties with both Europe (and Germany in particular), as well as SK. Apparently the Navy's objections have become more muted to this suggestion in recent months.

I don't think anyone on this forum would be surprised, especially given the drama with the fighters...

A split submarine fleet is not going to happen, multiple officials including the Prime Minister have confirmed this. So much of the value in these bids is tied up in their associated content, that same content is going to largely disappear if one company doesn’t win the bid. TKMS has already stated recently that their bid would basically lose all of its appeal if a split fleet was chosen.

The fighter review isn’t remotely comparable to the submarine procurement, the sheer amount of industrial offsets and bonuses are on a different level. That’s not even getting into the logistical burdens this will place on the Navy for effectively no reason. Any kind of split doesn’t make sense and I would be entirely blindsided if this option is exercised.

 

[GR66]

A split submarine fleet is not going to happen, multiple officials including the Prime Minister have confirmed this. So much of the value in these bids is tied up in their associated content, that same content is going to largely disappear if one company doesn’t win the bid. TKMS has already stated recently that their bid would basically lose all of its appeal if a split fleet was chosen.

The fighter review isn’t remotely comparable to the submarine procurement, the sheer amount of industrial offsets and bonuses are on a different level. That’s not even getting into the logistical burdens this will place on the Navy for effectively no reason. Any kind of split doesn’t make sense and I would be entirely blindsided if this option is exercised.

Well then the obvious solution would be to get all 12 x KS III's...

...and all 12 x Type 212CD's. See? Now everyone is happy and our boots are filled with industrial offsets!

Now our next purchase will have to be a bunch of these to man crew the subs!

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Now our next purchase will have to be a bunch of these to man crew the subs!
View attachment 100771

Why is Able Seaman Bloggin missing from roll call again?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Well...if you went with a split fleet you should at least get 8 and 8. That way you could have a quiet sub-hunter and a missile boat active on each coast at all times.

I wonder if you could talk Hanwha and TKMS into having a shared maintenance facility on each coast? If they teamed up they would dominate the conventional submarine market.

Not sure how feasible that is.
The German I oats are made from ‘non-metallic’ metal and the SK are not. Thought that I read or was informed that they ‘can’t be in the same facility.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I think you mean "non-magnetic" metals.