Laut Quellen erwägt Ottawa eine Aufteilung des U-Boot-Vertrags zwischen Europa und Südkorea
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ottawa-submarine-contract-europe-south-korea/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=bluesky
Laut Quellen erwägt Ottawa eine Aufteilung des U-Boot-Vertrags zwischen Europa und Südkorea
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ottawa-submarine-contract-europe-south-korea/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=bluesky
8 Kommentare
This doesn’t seem like a great idea to me. I see the potential fighter jet split differently.
Can’t read the article, but does that mean Europe with build the front half of a submarine and the South Koreans the back half?
Buying military equipment from two different sources is a logistical nightmare and pretty pointless seeing as we could just buy them from one source.
I guess the only good news is Irving won’t be building them.
Stupid. South Korea is already offering so many extras to get the contract. Let’s not take a worse deal just to avoid hurting Germany’s feelings
Seems like a really bad idea. The navy doesn’t want that, though they use what they’re given, and the PM said he wouldn’t do that a few months ago so he seemed to understand it was a bad idea. It’s probably an unlikely decision that’s just being considered.
This is what I would say, and realistically „weigh“ when trying to get further concessions from the suppliers.
Canada however is currently facing the risks of overly relying on single partners. Diversified suppliers is always going to be something that is considered.
Can’t read it but how many subs could we possibly be ordering? Wouldn’t splitting it just increase maintenance and training costs?
Just the staffing and training of two separate fleets would be hard. Then there’s maintaining two separate training systems, developing separate tactics/processes for operation. This would be phenomenally dumb.