There are tradeoffs with any procurement, agree that the Senator fits the bill….and don’t forget with the Senator the Ford Heavy Duty chassis that it uses will be built in Oakville when the Ford plant there reopens in the next couple of months.
You mentioned Defence Construction Canada awarding over fifty contracts recently. I was reading the Hansard transcripts from the Public Accounts committee (basically the MPs who audit government spending) just yesterday. The sheer volume of infrastructure money flowing to National Defence is staggering. Spending on northern military facilities went up 15% compared to last year. It is nice to see hard assets getting funded. The real test will be avoiding procurement delays. Ottawa regularly approves huge budgets but takes a decade to actually pour the concrete.
Agree on the JLTV vs SENRAP - JLTV is an impressive off-road platform, which will have better off-road mobility. SENATOR at full payload will likely be somewhat worse. & The JLTV can have a better level of protection... At the cost of a good chunck of payload.
However, 1 point not discussed often enough (beyond cost or sustainability...), is flexibility. JLTV is only really a 1:1 equivalent to the SENUP (4-door 4-5pax with a payload area). The huge advantage SENATOR will have, is the flexibility to add any variant we need to a whole family of vehicles beyond LUV. Need a turreted Light Cav? SENUP with a turret. An APC? SENRAP. Engineer section vehicle? SENUP with implements. Ambulance? CP? SENRAP. Cargo? 2-door SENUP. RCEME MRT? 2-door SENUP with a payload, or SENUP... or SENRAP, depending on what RCEME wants. A whole heck of a lot more flexibility - enough to build a Defence division /2 Div around. I'd even call the SENATOR the 90-100% solution.
I have a hard time imagining this. I know compromise is the art of pissing everyone one off by the same amount, but I think TKMS and Hanwha might justifiably see this as a bait and switch. And that would make sustainment, where 80% of the value/expense in this contract is, MUCH more complex. The benefits, theoretically, would be staying chummy with both the Koreans and the Germans (and possibly more importantly ATM, Norway), but that isn't actually a given. The other "benefit" would be getting more subs sooner... Only, we are going to struggle to recruit and train up crews for the new subs on top of the river class as it is, and trying to create 2 completely different training pipelines using the same limited training cadre is likely effectively impossible.
I really think this is someone who likes both offers, and wishes there was a middle path where we reap the benefits of both offers... Even if it's completely unrealistic. And I get it. I am a big fan of closer cooperation with the Nordic nations, and this would be huge, and the extra stealth of the 212CD is pretty nifty ... While I really like the size and room for future capabilities, plus the faster delivery timeline of the KSS. But as much as I would like there to be a path that makes everyone happy, I'm afraid that is a trap, and we are going to need to make a hard choice in order to reap any rewards.
Completely off topic but the G & M dropped an article today saying the government is considering splitting the submarine contract....6 212CD and 6 KSS-III. Noah have you heard anything about this?
There are tradeoffs with any procurement, agree that the Senator fits the bill….and don’t forget with the Senator the Ford Heavy Duty chassis that it uses will be built in Oakville when the Ford plant there reopens in the next couple of months.
You mentioned Defence Construction Canada awarding over fifty contracts recently. I was reading the Hansard transcripts from the Public Accounts committee (basically the MPs who audit government spending) just yesterday. The sheer volume of infrastructure money flowing to National Defence is staggering. Spending on northern military facilities went up 15% compared to last year. It is nice to see hard assets getting funded. The real test will be avoiding procurement delays. Ottawa regularly approves huge budgets but takes a decade to actually pour the concrete.
Agree on the JLTV vs SENRAP - JLTV is an impressive off-road platform, which will have better off-road mobility. SENATOR at full payload will likely be somewhat worse. & The JLTV can have a better level of protection... At the cost of a good chunck of payload.
However, 1 point not discussed often enough (beyond cost or sustainability...), is flexibility. JLTV is only really a 1:1 equivalent to the SENUP (4-door 4-5pax with a payload area). The huge advantage SENATOR will have, is the flexibility to add any variant we need to a whole family of vehicles beyond LUV. Need a turreted Light Cav? SENUP with a turret. An APC? SENRAP. Engineer section vehicle? SENUP with implements. Ambulance? CP? SENRAP. Cargo? 2-door SENUP. RCEME MRT? 2-door SENUP with a payload, or SENUP... or SENRAP, depending on what RCEME wants. A whole heck of a lot more flexibility - enough to build a Defence division /2 Div around. I'd even call the SENATOR the 90-100% solution.
I have a hard time imagining this. I know compromise is the art of pissing everyone one off by the same amount, but I think TKMS and Hanwha might justifiably see this as a bait and switch. And that would make sustainment, where 80% of the value/expense in this contract is, MUCH more complex. The benefits, theoretically, would be staying chummy with both the Koreans and the Germans (and possibly more importantly ATM, Norway), but that isn't actually a given. The other "benefit" would be getting more subs sooner... Only, we are going to struggle to recruit and train up crews for the new subs on top of the river class as it is, and trying to create 2 completely different training pipelines using the same limited training cadre is likely effectively impossible.
I really think this is someone who likes both offers, and wishes there was a middle path where we reap the benefits of both offers... Even if it's completely unrealistic. And I get it. I am a big fan of closer cooperation with the Nordic nations, and this would be huge, and the extra stealth of the 212CD is pretty nifty ... While I really like the size and room for future capabilities, plus the faster delivery timeline of the KSS. But as much as I would like there to be a path that makes everyone happy, I'm afraid that is a trap, and we are going to need to make a hard choice in order to reap any rewards.
Completely off topic but the G & M dropped an article today saying the government is considering splitting the submarine contract....6 212CD and 6 KSS-III. Noah have you heard anything about this?
Honestly not sure whether to cheer or cry if this is true....