Deadline 2036

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

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.

Deadline 2036 - Time is ticking on replacing Canada's vital submarine capabilities: New MLI paper by Jeffrey F. Collins | Macdonald-Laurier Institute

In a new MLI paper, Jeffrey F. Collins argues submarines are a necessity for the Royal Canadian Navy to meet new security challenges Canada faces.

www.macdonaldlaurier.ca

 

[Nilgiri]

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]

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.