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.

 

[stoker dave]

Thought that I read or was informed that they ‘can’t be in the same facility.

It is true that when fabricating components using certain types and grades of metals, there must be very strict material control procedures implemented to keep the 'wrong' kinds of materials out of the facility.

I have encountered such facilities used for the fabrication of parts for the nuclear industry.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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.

I will never say never, we have gotten Sams spade shovel, Ross Rifle, Arrow Cancelled, CF-5, Iltis, LSVW, Cyclone and TAPV to name a few contracts that went awry for mainly political reasons. If someone can make to Cabinet a compelling political argument, regardless of what the CAF wants, then it is a strong possibility of it happening.

 

[Underway]

Mark Friday in your calendars.

I'm afraid @calculus is correct but hopeful they are not. Split fleet isn't the end of the world, lots of countries do it with smaller or similar sized sub forces (Turkey, Italy, Korea).

But it just doesn't seem ideal and like @Rainbow1910 stated it means both bids loose a lot of their value overall. And the bids were for the full contract, not half the contract. Messy.

 

[YZT580]

Mark Friday in your calendars.

I'm afraid @calculus is correct but hopeful they are not. Split fleet isn't the end of the world, lots of countries do it with smaller or similar sized sub forces (Turkey, Italy, Korea).

But it just doesn't seem ideal and like @Rainbow1910 stated it means both bids loose a lot of their value overall. And the bids were for the full contract, not half the contract. Messy.

I wouldn't want to bet my pension on Calculus being wrong but there are other apples for us to pick in Europe such as tanks, 6th gen. a/c development and you make the most pressing reason for going with just one: what in those packages do you want to give up because both are contingent on the full deal

 

[Underway]

I wouldn't want to bet my pension on Calculus being wrong but there are other apples for us to pick in Europe such as tanks, 6th gen. a/c development and you make the most pressing reason for going with just one: what in those packages do you want to give up because both are contingent on the full deal

Yep, the Grizzly SPG is partially German, the Lynx IFV is fully German. I think there will be a lot of surface navy cooperation and tech between Canada and German coming up. PRO class is a German design after all.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I will never say never, we have gotten Sams spade shovel, Ross Rifle, Arrow Cancelled, CF-5, Iltis, LSVW, Cyclone and TAPV to name a few contracts that went awry for mainly political reasons. If someone can make to Cabinet a compelling political argument, regardless of what the CAF wants, then it is a strong possibility of it happening.

I'm pretty confidently going to say "never" specifically in this scenario, partially because the idea has been publicly shot down multiple times and also as I stated, a split fleet causes us to trade a lucrative contract for effectively minimal upside. South Korea and Germany have offered some of the most generous and substantial bids I've ever seen in a military procurement contest, that will largely evaporate if a split fleet is chosen. I don't really see a compelling political argument here, as the economic, logistical and industrial arguments will outweigh whatever is gained from splitting the contract.

We effectively lose a world class, extremely lucrative contract in exchange for......two mediocre contracts from two different partners? I think you can make a very easy argument that we're better off politically picking a side and sticking with it.

Mark Friday in your calendars.

I'm afraid @calculus is correct but hopeful they are not. Split fleet isn't the end of the world, lots of countries do it with smaller or similar sized sub forces (Turkey, Italy, Korea).

But it just doesn't seem ideal and like @Rainbow1910 stated it means both bids loose a lot of their value overall. And the bids were for the full contract, not half the contract. Messy.

There is a few differences between what nations like Turkey, Italy & Korea are doing, and what a split fleet means for Canada. All of these other split fleets are a result of navies building upon their existing fleets with new boats while keeping the older ones in service, typically with new modified variants of the older types. Canada isn't doing that, we would be sitting down and procuring two entirely different and unrelated, brand new submarine designs for concurrent operation. Very few nations sit down and procure multiple different types of submarines at once, especially when they are largely interchangeable as far as roles go. A lot of these nations had existing supply chains and personnel pipelines that they expanded upon and built overtime, Canada would be building two different sets of these largely from scratch in this hypothetical.

I hope we don't go down that route, screwing up the type of deals being offered to us would be the procurement fumble of the century.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

We effectively lose a world class, extremely lucrative contract in exchange for......two mediocre contracts from two different partners?

I hope we don't go down that route, screwing up the type of deals being offered to us would be the procurement fumble of the century.

But choosing mediocre over World Class is what we do best!

But I dearly hope I am wrong and you are right.