Thats what I hear. It is primarily one person in the PMO who has been keeping snd keeping this idea alive snd discussed. Again I don't know who it is, and I doubt wr ever will
Agree. Two fleets are dangerous to our national defence. I’m sure the thrust comes from the Industry ministry. It’s really about the automotive industry. That type of policy will harm national defence. Same with having two fighter fleets. The sub bids are based on 12 boats. Change it now, go into protracted discussions and we’re back to delay, delay, delay. Then decide on crap.
I would guess that this wrench at the last minute might be a last ditch effort for some of the peace keeping myth holders to try to push back against Carney as he is deeply and fundamentally making Ottawa deal in real Politik. Something the Social justice bunch are probably deeply uncomfortable with.
So announce that we are going full Kreigsmarine and Imperial Orient to bring the Loyd Axworthy/Rock arm of the Liberals to the megaphone.
The World has changed and unserious Ottawa has to catch up
Fwiw, I tend to agree that one fleet would be the smarter decision. My question is the reverse of the one we normally ask - that is, which choice has the most downside? Would the disappointment of the Germans or the Koreans be the most problematic? Are there other offsets the loser could get (realizing an offset to a $100 billion contract is pretty much impossible)? An interesting summer coming up for defence decisions.
Thats a good discussion topic. Personally, I believe the Germans as it stand have more opportunity to benefot from the future than the Koreans. I believe their chances across things like IFM, HDFM, and maybe MEDCAV are equal or better than the Koreans.
So in terms of followup? The Germans could very much bounce back in my opinion with several twns of billions deals.
Agreed, if we do actually get in a ground war it’s most likely in Europe so it makes sense to partner up with not only a manufacturing powerhouse but the country that is on track to have the largest armed forces on the continent. With FCAS on life support would love to see us, the Swedes and the Germans partner up on a 6th generation fighter project as well.
I really like this question. If asking how to make everyone happy is fundamentally the wrong question, this feels like the right question. Not, "can we have our cake and eat it too?" but, "if only one of them gets cake, which one can I entice with something else?"
I like Noah's take on this. If we go South Korean on CPSP, there are plenty of other areas we can collaborate with Germany (I'm looking at you, Airbus, Saab, Bombardier 6th gen!), but if we don't involve SK on the CPSP, I don't see them being our first pick on anything else. Honestly, the missed chance to collab with Norway is more upsetting than the TKMS connection. We will have to wait and see.
Interesting that its just one person pushing this idea. PM Carney or the Defence Minister need to shut this idea down before it starts to gain to much traction.
Canada has to acknowledge that either Germany or ROK will lose this contract. At a time when we have one functioning submarine (basically) we send a horrific message with awarding a two “ship” fleet. With how much regard will future foreign defence competitors engage with Canada if we waffle on this and other defence procurement matters?
There must be the one winner in this competition and the RCN will have myriad challenges with the one submarine. Yes, and don’t “Canadianize” it or there will be further years long delays.
I’m not sure which submarine is under “deconstruction “ but I was told submarine technical skills training or recurrent training involve the dismantling process to maintain submariner and technician skills.
Let’s hope the government makes the most informed decision and chooses one clear winner in timely fashion.
Lots of places. Leos, Lynx, the 10X10 LAV uses the AGM module. You could likely count Airbus enough? Bridge and Gap crossing, Zetros in active procurement...
Fair point. While I'm a KSS-III fan myself, I'm not so sure it's a logical slam dunk, even if it does does edge out the 212CD in my books... But realpolitik factors mean that we need to partner up with our artic buddies, and sharing a platform with Norway is right up that alley. From a political standpoint, we have a lot more to benefit from TKMS. And something that I've never heard anybody else discus, what happens to out future subs if the tensions in the Pacific explode? They are going to be right in the middle of a real mess... Of course the same is true if Russia invaded Europe for TKMS, but I think China is in a better place to kick things off with Taiwan than Russia is with Nato...
I'll say it again, TKMS needs to consider offering something like delivering the first 6 as standard CDs for the Atlantic, then using the time before the delivery of the final 6 to engineer and transition to a stretched expeditionary variant for the Pacific.
I like the idea, but I don't think the current agreement will include any of that language. Not enough time, and the requirement would have to come from us. TKMS is not going to spend the money on design work when they can already sell us designs that are finalized.
All similar arguments for the F-35/Gripen dilemma. First, the CAF are undermanned for the existing fleet; then we add two new types and must still maintain the old fleet until the new units come on board. No service in the CAF is manned up to that challenge…not training, not operations, not maintenance. I love that we have tough decisions like this to make…we never had this in my day. But, a definitive selection must be made, and it cannot break the folks in Hyde service it was meant to help. Please Canada, pick a lane!
I think the f35 v Gripen debate is actually very different. They fill completely different roles, rather than filling the same role with different strengths. The f35 is an offensive weapon, the Gripen is a defensive weapon. If we wanted to use all our planes for one thing, we should keep our fleet unified, bit if we use one fleet for NATO missions, and one fleet for sovereign defense (and norad, ignore the noise hoekstra makes, it's all hot air and nonsense)...
I've always thought that you needed 4 boats to keep 1 always at sea. Having a fleet of 12, with 6 in Esquimalt and 6 in Halifax would mean there would be times when you could only deploy a single boat from each base. A fleet of 16, with 8 on each coast would allow a constant availability of 2 boats from each base. This would allow Esquimalt to deploy 1 boat to the Indo-Pacific and 1 to the western Arctic while Halifax deploys 1 boat to monitor the GIUK Gap and 1 boat to the eastern Arctic.
In this context, a split fleet of 8 on each coast, KSS in Esquimalt and 212CD in Halifax, makes more sense. Each coast would have the appropriate support facilities for their sub type. I don't know how often crews would need to move between the Atlantic and Pacific fleets in this scenario and each coast would have their own supply chain appropriate to their sub type.
The question really is, "are operations in the Pacific sufficiently different from those in the Atlantic to justify buying a different sub type for each fleet?". For example, do the longer distances in the Pacific require a larger sub like the KSS? Does the shallow Baltic benefit from the smaller 212CD and it's diamond hull?
I bet Joly is one of them pushing for this, it’s sounds right up her alley. Please pick one. I prefer the 212cd but I’d much prefer 12 KSS III over a split order. We must get this right, the future of our country depends on it.
Thats what I hear. It is primarily one person in the PMO who has been keeping snd keeping this idea alive snd discussed. Again I don't know who it is, and I doubt wr ever will
Agree. Two fleets are dangerous to our national defence. I’m sure the thrust comes from the Industry ministry. It’s really about the automotive industry. That type of policy will harm national defence. Same with having two fighter fleets. The sub bids are based on 12 boats. Change it now, go into protracted discussions and we’re back to delay, delay, delay. Then decide on crap.
A valid concern. The thing I hear is it is beyond the Cabinet level and to the PMO level, so some9ne very close to the Prime Minister.
Granted, that doesnt mean peoppe aint trying to shift the process elsewhere, but on the split? It seems to be PMo
At cabinet? Joly sits there.
I would guess that this wrench at the last minute might be a last ditch effort for some of the peace keeping myth holders to try to push back against Carney as he is deeply and fundamentally making Ottawa deal in real Politik. Something the Social justice bunch are probably deeply uncomfortable with.
So announce that we are going full Kreigsmarine and Imperial Orient to bring the Loyd Axworthy/Rock arm of the Liberals to the megaphone.
The World has changed and unserious Ottawa has to catch up
Fwiw, I tend to agree that one fleet would be the smarter decision. My question is the reverse of the one we normally ask - that is, which choice has the most downside? Would the disappointment of the Germans or the Koreans be the most problematic? Are there other offsets the loser could get (realizing an offset to a $100 billion contract is pretty much impossible)? An interesting summer coming up for defence decisions.
Thats a good discussion topic. Personally, I believe the Germans as it stand have more opportunity to benefot from the future than the Koreans. I believe their chances across things like IFM, HDFM, and maybe MEDCAV are equal or better than the Koreans.
So in terms of followup? The Germans could very much bounce back in my opinion with several twns of billions deals.
Agreed, if we do actually get in a ground war it’s most likely in Europe so it makes sense to partner up with not only a manufacturing powerhouse but the country that is on track to have the largest armed forces on the continent. With FCAS on life support would love to see us, the Swedes and the Germans partner up on a 6th generation fighter project as well.
Well if we go Korean the Germans do build Leopards and the new Lynx MICV’s.
Or in the opposite direction SK builds Tanks,red backs and K 9’sand 10’s so.,.
I really like this question. If asking how to make everyone happy is fundamentally the wrong question, this feels like the right question. Not, "can we have our cake and eat it too?" but, "if only one of them gets cake, which one can I entice with something else?"
I like Noah's take on this. If we go South Korean on CPSP, there are plenty of other areas we can collaborate with Germany (I'm looking at you, Airbus, Saab, Bombardier 6th gen!), but if we don't involve SK on the CPSP, I don't see them being our first pick on anything else. Honestly, the missed chance to collab with Norway is more upsetting than the TKMS connection. We will have to wait and see.
Interesting that its just one person pushing this idea. PM Carney or the Defence Minister need to shut this idea down before it starts to gain to much traction.
Canada has to acknowledge that either Germany or ROK will lose this contract. At a time when we have one functioning submarine (basically) we send a horrific message with awarding a two “ship” fleet. With how much regard will future foreign defence competitors engage with Canada if we waffle on this and other defence procurement matters?
There must be the one winner in this competition and the RCN will have myriad challenges with the one submarine. Yes, and don’t “Canadianize” it or there will be further years long delays.
I’m not sure which submarine is under “deconstruction “ but I was told submarine technical skills training or recurrent training involve the dismantling process to maintain submariner and technician skills.
Let’s hope the government makes the most informed decision and chooses one clear winner in timely fashion.
Is there a way we can heavily invest in German technology and equipment if we get the KSS-III?
In the hopes of getting a few of the offsets they offered in CP, maybe we upgrade/buy Leo2A8s, Lynx's, PZH2000s...what else?
Lots of places. Leos, Lynx, the 10X10 LAV uses the AGM module. You could likely count Airbus enough? Bridge and Gap crossing, Zetros in active procurement...
Germans are not without future options
Politics aside the logical choice is 12 KSS-III. But that doesn't coincide with Carneys EU arming plan.
Fair point. While I'm a KSS-III fan myself, I'm not so sure it's a logical slam dunk, even if it does does edge out the 212CD in my books... But realpolitik factors mean that we need to partner up with our artic buddies, and sharing a platform with Norway is right up that alley. From a political standpoint, we have a lot more to benefit from TKMS. And something that I've never heard anybody else discus, what happens to out future subs if the tensions in the Pacific explode? They are going to be right in the middle of a real mess... Of course the same is true if Russia invaded Europe for TKMS, but I think China is in a better place to kick things off with Taiwan than Russia is with Nato...
Great couple of articles Noah. Well done. I'm curious, who is the one person pushing a split fleet?
Dont know, but it’s very specifically one person who keeps the idea going. That's all I know
I'll say it again, TKMS needs to consider offering something like delivering the first 6 as standard CDs for the Atlantic, then using the time before the delivery of the final 6 to engineer and transition to a stretched expeditionary variant for the Pacific.
I like the idea, but I don't think the current agreement will include any of that language. Not enough time, and the requirement would have to come from us. TKMS is not going to spend the money on design work when they can already sell us designs that are finalized.
All similar arguments for the F-35/Gripen dilemma. First, the CAF are undermanned for the existing fleet; then we add two new types and must still maintain the old fleet until the new units come on board. No service in the CAF is manned up to that challenge…not training, not operations, not maintenance. I love that we have tough decisions like this to make…we never had this in my day. But, a definitive selection must be made, and it cannot break the folks in Hyde service it was meant to help. Please Canada, pick a lane!
I think the f35 v Gripen debate is actually very different. They fill completely different roles, rather than filling the same role with different strengths. The f35 is an offensive weapon, the Gripen is a defensive weapon. If we wanted to use all our planes for one thing, we should keep our fleet unified, bit if we use one fleet for NATO missions, and one fleet for sovereign defense (and norad, ignore the noise hoekstra makes, it's all hot air and nonsense)...
I've always thought that you needed 4 boats to keep 1 always at sea. Having a fleet of 12, with 6 in Esquimalt and 6 in Halifax would mean there would be times when you could only deploy a single boat from each base. A fleet of 16, with 8 on each coast would allow a constant availability of 2 boats from each base. This would allow Esquimalt to deploy 1 boat to the Indo-Pacific and 1 to the western Arctic while Halifax deploys 1 boat to monitor the GIUK Gap and 1 boat to the eastern Arctic.
In this context, a split fleet of 8 on each coast, KSS in Esquimalt and 212CD in Halifax, makes more sense. Each coast would have the appropriate support facilities for their sub type. I don't know how often crews would need to move between the Atlantic and Pacific fleets in this scenario and each coast would have their own supply chain appropriate to their sub type.
The question really is, "are operations in the Pacific sufficiently different from those in the Atlantic to justify buying a different sub type for each fleet?". For example, do the longer distances in the Pacific require a larger sub like the KSS? Does the shallow Baltic benefit from the smaller 212CD and it's diamond hull?
I bet Joly is one of them pushing for this, it’s sounds right up her alley. Please pick one. I prefer the 212cd but I’d much prefer 12 KSS III over a split order. We must get this right, the future of our country depends on it.
Not Joly at the least. Its apparently someone in the PMO.
Is Gerry Butts still around there?
Not in the PMO