Now, back to AOPS: Did anybody notice that, when attending the laying ceremony for the third HDW, the Minister of Procurement (not, of Defence) indicated that Ottawa could be open to acquiring a seventh AOPS to help cover the gap between AOPS and CSC.
Now we have to remember that ISL supposedly has a fixed $$ envelope contract to build five, or if they can manage it six, AOPS. They have until 7 months after the first AOPS is delivered to indicate if they will be able to build 5 or 6 for that fixed price. Obviously, if they can only manage 5, the gap between the AOPS and CSC will be greater. Would that mean (based on the minister's comment) that we would then spend a further huge amount of money for up to two AOPS that the RCN never asked for and (in all truth were imposed on the RCN at the whim of a PM [Harper] without any strategic thought behind the move) has no strategic or tactical use for?
Meanwhile, that same government refuses to procure the leasing of a second iAOR that the RCN needs and wants NOW! to cover a clearly existing HUGE (to quote the President) gap in the strategic/tactical needs of the Navy. They do so on the very dubious excuse that the RCN allegedly indicated it has no need for four AORs*. This is the weakest of excuses as the iAOR are leased and whenever the new Protecteur class vessels are both completed, you can return one or both iAOR to their rightful owners, so that at no time are there more than three AOR in the Navy's hands.