[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

Further to my previous post, we can approach procurement of these capital projects in a few ways:

Safe buy = proven design
Proven design = old

New design = unproven
Unproven = high risk

Some will say we shouldn't buy something that is old technology, even though we know it works. Others will say that we shouldn't buy new technology because it's unproven and, thus, high risk.

Should we take risks? Sure. But we can responsibly manage them. Since we get the first ship in 2036, the new stuff will be standard. Better off having the first 5 be 'Mark 1" or "Block 1" designs, give them the leftovers and cheap tech with the idea that when the Block 2s (next 5) come out that we'll already have built-in upgrades. This is a responsible risk-managed approach to leverage newer technology into the project.

With respect to the technology identified in the presentation the CBC obtained:

1. 127mm gun is obsolete? How? Literally every Western navy has moved in this direction. The 127mm does have guided munitions. See Raytheon Excalibur NS. The 127mm gun is a massive step-up for the RCN.

2. CAMM (Sea Ceptor). Why is it inadequate? It's probably the best close in air defence system right now.

3. SPY-7. Sure, it's not yet in service, but SPY is. So if I'm in procurement, I'd take that risk.

Other than scaring off Somalian fishing boats what the hell does the 'main gun' get used for anyway?