The runoff between TKMS and Hanwha may end in negative impacts on Canada's international relations. Could one not pursue the idea of a split contract of Hanwha subs with a B.C. HQ and another group of CD212s covering the Atlantic, Greenland and Arctic? This would allow Hanwha subs to cover the Pacific and west coast areas while TKMS subs would operate in close cooperation with Norwegian and German navies using the same subs.
If one corporation or the backing nation takes losing a single competition to heart so much that it negatively impacts Canada's international relations, I do not think that specific nation is a worthwhile partner in the first place. There is a significant amount of upcoming contracts for the Canadian Army involving air defences and a multitude of armoured vehicle competitions that Korea or Germany would be able to potentially win to help offset a loss regarding submarines. No party is entitled to win our contract, we as the customer decide which bidder best suits our needs. Anybody trying to force this upon us does not deserve our money, time or effort.
It is going to be a substantial effort for the RCN to even expand its submarine fleet somewhat, let alone to the degree that is envisioned to operate a fleet of 12 submarines. If we adopt two non-interoperable and non-interchangeable designs, we are introducing an exceptional amount of stress on an already heavily stressed submarine force. You would need two specialist facilities with their own tooling, two workforces (both partners are unlikely to want the same facilities looking into their classified items and IP), two different personnel training pipelines, two different weaponry/equipment supply chains and many more unnecessary duplications of capability.
Splitting the fleet also serves to undermine the competitive nature of the Canadian procurement system. If we set the precedent that we will split contracts and deny the parties from having a clear winner, we are signaling to the world that even if you bring your 'A game' and come to Canada with your absolute best, you still may not win and your opponent will get a pity prize to maintain relations/double dip in industrial benefits.
As the RCN and Govt has been saying, we need to move forward with a single winner and leave behind this very poor idea of splitting the fleet.
Thanks.
Nils Larsson
Ottawa
The runoff between TKMS and Hanwha may end in negative impacts on Canada's international relations. Could one not pursue the idea of a split contract of Hanwha subs with a B.C. HQ and another group of CD212s covering the Atlantic, Greenland and Arctic? This would allow Hanwha subs to cover the Pacific and west coast areas while TKMS subs would operate in close cooperation with Norwegian and German navies using the same subs.
If one corporation or the backing nation takes losing a single competition to heart so much that it negatively impacts Canada's international relations, I do not think that specific nation is a worthwhile partner in the first place. There is a significant amount of upcoming contracts for the Canadian Army involving air defences and a multitude of armoured vehicle competitions that Korea or Germany would be able to potentially win to help offset a loss regarding submarines. No party is entitled to win our contract, we as the customer decide which bidder best suits our needs. Anybody trying to force this upon us does not deserve our money, time or effort.
It is going to be a substantial effort for the RCN to even expand its submarine fleet somewhat, let alone to the degree that is envisioned to operate a fleet of 12 submarines. If we adopt two non-interoperable and non-interchangeable designs, we are introducing an exceptional amount of stress on an already heavily stressed submarine force. You would need two specialist facilities with their own tooling, two workforces (both partners are unlikely to want the same facilities looking into their classified items and IP), two different personnel training pipelines, two different weaponry/equipment supply chains and many more unnecessary duplications of capability.
Splitting the fleet also serves to undermine the competitive nature of the Canadian procurement system. If we set the precedent that we will split contracts and deny the parties from having a clear winner, we are signaling to the world that even if you bring your 'A game' and come to Canada with your absolute best, you still may not win and your opponent will get a pity prize to maintain relations/double dip in industrial benefits.
As the RCN and Govt has been saying, we need to move forward with a single winner and leave behind this very poor idea of splitting the fleet.