You know I would love to hear someone who is or has been a real submariner talk about the two sub choices at least in general terms. Most of this procurement assigns the majority of points in this procurement to ability to maintain & economic benefits to Canada….so here is hoping things work out for the best on this. (Certainly for the men & women who will crew them)
A lot of people are saying Gripens at Hamilton would be a great idea. And just imagine the heritage flight photo-ops with the Lancaster, B-25, and C-47?
For the CDCs, I don't think it matters if they're called pocket/light frigates or mini/maxi/super-faxes, so long as they meet the RCN's requirements. World-wide, the tonnage of the various classes has been inflating like my waistline since the 1990s as military types tried to cram as much capability as required and telling the peace-dividend politicians that "it's only a corvette/frigate not a destroyer/cruiser so will be cheaper!" Just as a point of reference, the latest CDC designs are larger and more capable than most WWII Destroyers, and the RCD is larger than many WWII Light Cruisers and more capable than some WWII Heavy Cruisers.
CANSOF may have command of the Blackhawks but the RCAF will still own them and be responsible for operating, sustaining, and training. Given the relatively small numbers being discussed, it would make more sense for nTACS to simply do a follow on buy of additional UH60Ms and keep everything streamlined.
In all honesty all of Latvia is the new Lahr so wouldn’t matter if the new camp were it when it’s really the whole country, our “fulda gap” if you will
Regarding Q29, a GBAD project a decade old with nothing yet to show doesn’t give me a lot of confidence in the CAF’s ability to identify and fill a requirement. Let’s hope that the increased funding being provided will speed the process up.
I have a two questions for Noah and anyone who reads this:
Why do so many people who support hanwha say Tkms can’t/wont provide the capability for Canada and the economic benefits of Tkms are highly suspect compared to hanwhas.
And that they say Tkms can’t do something or provide something when Tkms says they can
I’m not trying to say hanwhas proposal is worse
Both are amazing offers and an extremely close competition.
Just confused why people who clearly support hanwha say we should automatically get everything from them since they’re just that much better compared to other options.
2. Specifically for Noah is there a place to ask you questions for let’s talk to Noah?
1) technical merits: each bidder has been deemed suitable by the RCN and meets its requirements. People generally get into the weeds when it comes to the technical specs of each boat arguing that hanwha’s sub is in the water and Tkms is not and therefore is riskier as this is a new and unproven design. Both subs are good but differ enough that endless debates ensue.
2) support: Hanwha has never exported a sub before and lacks the experience that TKMS has gained building and supporting over 70% of NATO’s fleet. Hanwha is given a bit of a pass here due to their perceived manufacturing excellence and national desire to make this contract work and crack open the nato defence market. In short…they are highly motivated.
3) time: it is generally understood that Hanwha can deliver 12 subs the fastest. Read Noah’s excellent article on his visit to their incredible shipyard. TKMS’s order book is full. In order to compete with Hanwha Norway and Germany have given up their boats in the production line to meet our deadline. That’s great but creates a traffic jam as the Norwegian/German boats will then get priority for a few years so they can get their boats. How long? Who knows. Maybe 6 years before they get caught up and get back to our boats. In short…production bottleneck.
4) Economic benefits: ask me in 20 years to see how it all turned out. Lots of promises from both bidders. However…Hanwha has been much more aggressive in their public messaging as it relates to economic benefits (jobs, technology transfer, investments etc) and their capability to deliver on time. TKMS has only recently ramped up their messaging. Does it tell you which is superior? No…but helps alter perceptions.
Re: your second question, at the beginning of each Let's Talk post there is some preamble text and a "Slido link" that leads to the page where people post questions for the next round of Let's Talk. For this iteration, here is the direct link: https://app.sli.do/event/2NPy7rjWzEejnRmdcpnB8g/live/questions
You know I would love to hear someone who is or has been a real submariner talk about the two sub choices at least in general terms. Most of this procurement assigns the majority of points in this procurement to ability to maintain & economic benefits to Canada….so here is hoping things work out for the best on this. (Certainly for the men & women who will crew them)
A lot of people are saying Gripens at Hamilton would be a great idea. And just imagine the heritage flight photo-ops with the Lancaster, B-25, and C-47?
For the CDCs, I don't think it matters if they're called pocket/light frigates or mini/maxi/super-faxes, so long as they meet the RCN's requirements. World-wide, the tonnage of the various classes has been inflating like my waistline since the 1990s as military types tried to cram as much capability as required and telling the peace-dividend politicians that "it's only a corvette/frigate not a destroyer/cruiser so will be cheaper!" Just as a point of reference, the latest CDC designs are larger and more capable than most WWII Destroyers, and the RCD is larger than many WWII Light Cruisers and more capable than some WWII Heavy Cruisers.
CANSOF may have command of the Blackhawks but the RCAF will still own them and be responsible for operating, sustaining, and training. Given the relatively small numbers being discussed, it would make more sense for nTACS to simply do a follow on buy of additional UH60Ms and keep everything streamlined.
In all honesty all of Latvia is the new Lahr so wouldn’t matter if the new camp were it when it’s really the whole country, our “fulda gap” if you will
"Fuck you your country is my base now" - Cody 2026 to the local latvian children
Regarding Q29, a GBAD project a decade old with nothing yet to show doesn’t give me a lot of confidence in the CAF’s ability to identify and fill a requirement. Let’s hope that the increased funding being provided will speed the process up.
I have a two questions for Noah and anyone who reads this:
Why do so many people who support hanwha say Tkms can’t/wont provide the capability for Canada and the economic benefits of Tkms are highly suspect compared to hanwhas.
And that they say Tkms can’t do something or provide something when Tkms says they can
I’m not trying to say hanwhas proposal is worse
Both are amazing offers and an extremely close competition.
Just confused why people who clearly support hanwha say we should automatically get everything from them since they’re just that much better compared to other options.
2. Specifically for Noah is there a place to ask you questions for let’s talk to Noah?
4 parts to your first question:
1) technical merits: each bidder has been deemed suitable by the RCN and meets its requirements. People generally get into the weeds when it comes to the technical specs of each boat arguing that hanwha’s sub is in the water and Tkms is not and therefore is riskier as this is a new and unproven design. Both subs are good but differ enough that endless debates ensue.
2) support: Hanwha has never exported a sub before and lacks the experience that TKMS has gained building and supporting over 70% of NATO’s fleet. Hanwha is given a bit of a pass here due to their perceived manufacturing excellence and national desire to make this contract work and crack open the nato defence market. In short…they are highly motivated.
3) time: it is generally understood that Hanwha can deliver 12 subs the fastest. Read Noah’s excellent article on his visit to their incredible shipyard. TKMS’s order book is full. In order to compete with Hanwha Norway and Germany have given up their boats in the production line to meet our deadline. That’s great but creates a traffic jam as the Norwegian/German boats will then get priority for a few years so they can get their boats. How long? Who knows. Maybe 6 years before they get caught up and get back to our boats. In short…production bottleneck.
4) Economic benefits: ask me in 20 years to see how it all turned out. Lots of promises from both bidders. However…Hanwha has been much more aggressive in their public messaging as it relates to economic benefits (jobs, technology transfer, investments etc) and their capability to deliver on time. TKMS has only recently ramped up their messaging. Does it tell you which is superior? No…but helps alter perceptions.
Hope that helps. Cheers
I think this is a pretty good summation....
Re: your second question, at the beginning of each Let's Talk post there is some preamble text and a "Slido link" that leads to the page where people post questions for the next round of Let's Talk. For this iteration, here is the direct link: https://app.sli.do/event/2NPy7rjWzEejnRmdcpnB8g/live/questions