Deadline 2036

DAVEBLOGGINS

Committed member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
207
Reactions
8 333
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
Here is an interesting article assessing the requirements and options for Canada's "future" submarine force written for the MacDonald Institute by Jeffery Collins. There is a very good Forward written by retired Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. This should create some interesting discussions with forum members.:)

 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,458
Reactions
107 19,162
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
Option 1 – Domestic Build: The National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS) is committed to the continuous, multi-decade domestic construction of federal vessels. For the submarine replacement, one or more NSS yards could build a “made in Canada” design or a Canadianized foreign design.

Option 2 – Canadianized Military-off-the-shelf (MOTS): Sweden, Spain, France, Germany, and Japan are established non-nuclear submarine producers with whom Ottawa could work in buying a Canadianized MOTS submarine. This is the most common and cost-conscious approach used by smaller allies.

Option 3 – Collaborative Build: Canada can work with an establish submarine builder to split production between the two countries or enter a joint financing arrangement. This would entail a complex arrangement involving intellectual property negotiations and costs over a Canadianized design.


==================

I would pick option 2 personally....lowest cost and time is of the essence.

Our own shipyards+industry should (past CSC etc) focus fully as much as possible on AOPs program and more potent successors there...and developing a niche there maybe. I dont see the current AOPS as sufficient in its capability.

Arctic is really going to open up soon.
 

DAVEBLOGGINS

Committed member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
207
Reactions
8 333
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
Option 1 – Domestic Build: The National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS) is committed to the continuous, multi-decade domestic construction of federal vessels. For the submarine replacement, one or more NSS yards could build a “made in Canada” design or a Canadianized foreign design.

Option 2 – Canadianized Military-off-the-shelf (MOTS): Sweden, Spain, France, Germany, and Japan are established non-nuclear submarine producers with whom Ottawa could work in buying a Canadianized MOTS submarine. This is the most common and cost-conscious approach used by smaller allies.

Option 3 – Collaborative Build: Canada can work with an establish submarine builder to split production between the two countries or enter a joint financing arrangement. This would entail a complex arrangement involving intellectual property negotiations and costs over a Canadianized design.


==================

I would pick option 2 personally....lowest cost and time is of the essence.

Our own shipyards+industry should (past CSC etc) focus fully as much as possible on AOPs program and more potent successors there...and developing a niche there maybe. I dont see the current AOPS as sufficient in its capability.

Arctic is really going to open up soon.
Itend to agree with you Nilgiri however my preference would be Option 2 and Option 1 second.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom