• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Replacing the Subs

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
240
Points
710
Combine a small-ish fleet of 4-6 SSKs with a sensor net of XLUUVs and USV's and maybe some additional MPA's and we could have a useful capability at a lesser cost international credibility than 8-10 nuclear boats.
a) What international credibility?
b) Let's face it. 8-10 nuclear subs are clearly NOT on the table. We need to look at other options.

The dreaming we do on any of the capability/equipment threads would be aspirational under a conservative government, which might try to scrape up a few coppers for defence. Under prolonged liberal/left governance, it's just delusional.
 

suffolkowner

Sr. Member
Reaction score
99
Points
280
Not as an alternative to replacing the Victorias, but perhaps investing in a fleet of XLUUVs could help offset the fact that we can't afford as large a fleet of subs as we would like.

Combine a small-ish fleet of 4-6 SSKs with a sensor net of XLUUVs and USV's and maybe some additional MPA's and we could have a useful capability at a lesser cost than 8-10 nuclear boats.
I agree with this, I just don't see nuclear boats happening. It will be interesting to see what comes out of the Dutch project as having the same sub as an ally would be a benefit. The list again

Swedish A-26
French Scorpene/Attack Class
German 212/214/216/218
Spanish S-80
South Korean KSS-III
Japanese Taigei Class
new Taiwan class

did I miss any?
 

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,153
Points
940
a) What international credibility?
At some point, Canada (the govt, not CAF) will have to make a choice whether it should be a "jack of all trades" military, or a specialized one. We don't seem to be able to do both.

Pick a couple of things we're really good at, and focus on them. We're not going to any conflicts by ourselves anyway, so we might as well find niche roles and integrate as best we can to allied coalitions.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
3,625
Points
1,060
At some point, Canada (the govt, not CAF) will have to make a choice whether it should be a "jack of all trades" military, or a specialized one. We don't seem to be able to do both.

Pick a couple of things we're really good at, and focus on them. We're not going to any conflicts by ourselves anyway, so we might as well find niche roles and integrate as best we can to allied coalitions.

Well that's an easy one for this (three time elected) Liberal government: Peacekeeping. Peacekeeping. Peacekeeping.
 

Swampbuggy

Member
Reaction score
34
Points
280
At some point, Canada (the govt, not CAF) will have to make a choice whether it should be a "jack of all trades" military, or a specialized one. We don't seem to be able to do both.

Pick a couple of things we're really good at, and focus on them. We're not going to any conflicts by ourselves anyway, so we might as well find niche roles and integrate as best we can to allied coalitions.
I've often wondered if it wasn't best to scale funding towards the services that are most relevant at home and abroad. I'm certainly no expert, but I've thought that scaling back the Army to one focused on special forces and training vs having it trying to do everything with limited resources, may be worth looking into. The cost of sourcing and maintaining MBT's, LAV's, TAPV's etc when they have limited practical applications at home and are largely expeditionary equipment makes me less certain of their overall value than something like an enhanced fighter fleet or MPA's or perhaps most importantly, naval platforms that are force multipliers like subs.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
560
Points
1,060
June 3, 2010 National Shipbuilding Strategy Announced

Screwed up MOD procurement system starts launching the following vessels

SSNs HMS Astute (2010), Ambush (2013), Artful (2016), Audacious (2021)

CVs HMS Queen Elizabeth (2017), Prince of Wales (2019)

DGs HMS Dauntless (2010), Diamond (2011), Dragon (2012), Defender (2013), Duncan (2013)

OPVs HMS Forth (2018), Medway (2019), Trent (2020), Tamar (2020), Spey (2021) and Severn refreshed in (2021)

AORs RFA Tidespring (2017), Tiderace (2018), Tidesurge (2019), Tideforce (2019).

In addition the following vessels have been ordered for delivery

4x Dreadnough SSBNs for delivery by early 2030s (2 builiding)
8x Type 26 with 3 delivered prior to 2030
5x Type 31 with 5 delivererd prior to 2027

Competition contracts have been awarded for 3x Fleet Solid Support Ships for delivery by 2032

Planning has commenced for

6-8x Multi Role Support Ships
5x Type 32 Frigates
6? Type 83 Destroyers

By the early 2030s the 2010 NSS will have delivered

8x AOPV
2x JSS

The first CSC Type 26


And a handful of science vessels.


We should be as screwed up as the MOD.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
560
Points
1,060
At some point, Canada (the govt, not CAF) will have to make a choice whether it should be a "jack of all trades" military, or a specialized one. We don't seem to be able to do both.

Pick a couple of things we're really good at, and focus on them. We're not going to any conflicts by ourselves anyway, so we might as well find niche roles and integrate as best we can to allied coalitions.

Goebel's "Big Lie" hyperbole is popular these days. In keeping with these hyperbolic times I am going to suggest that DND's "Big Lie" is that it is a General Purpose military. It isn't. It is already a specialized force.

The Navy specializes in Escorts. Now it escorts convoys of American carriers around the world rather than Norwegian freighters across the Atlantic.
The Air Force specializes in the Air Defence of North America
The Army specializes in providing a single Armoured Brigade Group that can fit into an American Corps in Europe.

All services stretch the envelope to do other stuff with what they have but they are already niche forces, American auxiliaries. Just like the auxiliaries of Rome or the Bengal Lancers, or the Gurkhas.

The argument, like the one about the hooker at the bar and the price, has already been decided. We already provide niche services. The only discussion that remains is if they ones we provide are useful and effective. Or should we be doing something different that is more useful to our government and its allies.

Change demands we move out of our 20th century comfort zone.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
3,625
Points
1,060
Goebel's "Big Lie" hyperbole is popular these days. In keeping with these hyperbolic times I am going to suggest that DND's "Big Lie" is that it is a General Purpose military. It isn't. It is already a specialized force.

The Navy specializes in Escorts. Now it escorts convoys of American carriers around the world rather than Norwegian freighters across the Atlantic.
The Air Force specializes in the Air Defence of North America
The Army specializes in providing a single Armoured Brigade Group that can fit into an American Corps in Europe.

Really? We can do that?
 

Maxman1

Member
Reaction score
88
Points
430
25 used Australian Hornets to supplement our current fleet of aging Hornets - ones that needed upgrades to ejection seats, computers, radios, etc.

When that money could have gone towards actually just buying the next fleet of jets, the same fleet everybody acknowledges we still need to buy.

But that would mean buying from Boeing, who filed a complaint against Bombarier over dumping, which Dear Leader deemed such an offense worth canceling a purchase of 12 Super Hornets and six Growlers (and possibly another 70 to replace the entire fleet).
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
597
Points
890
But that would mean buying from Boeing, who filed a complaint against Bombarier over dumping, which Dear Leader deemed such an offense worth canceling a purchase of 12 Super Hornets and six Growlers (and possibly another 70 to replace the entire fleet).
Not necessarily. The competition was ongoing at the time & somehow still is.

The money used to purchase the 25 used Hornets could have been put towards the purchase of the new fleet, whatever plane that ends up being.

Instead we pay roughly $1B to Australia for jets that they were retiring from service soon anyway 🤦🏼‍♂️

And we STILL need to replace our current fleet…


Gosh, we were already a special kind of special BEFORE dumb dumb was in charge 😅 Ahem, I mean Dear Leader.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
597
Points
890
Uh yeah. Canadian procurement stupidity is not limited to the last 6 years.
You’re absolutely right.

My post was mostly meant as casual banter - and was completely off topic. My apologies, I genuinely forgot which thread this was. (Night shift again)


Whoever mentioned purchasing the used Aussie subs for our own use, I know it was meant as a joke.

Buuuuutttttt…. Someone in Ottawa will probably go 🤨 at some point. Don’t feed the good idea fairies!
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
692
Points
1,010
Well that's an easy one for this (three time elected) Liberal government: Peacekeeping. Peacekeeping. Peacekeeping.
Really? What peacekeeping missions have the Libs announced in the last 6 years in power? The missions are training in Ukraine, Latvia and the normal NATO and Asian naval missions.

Peacekeeping is over, even with the voting public. A happy historical note and nothing else.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
611
Points
910
a) What international credibility?
b) Let's face it. 8-10 nuclear subs are clearly NOT on the table. We need to look at other options.
The problem is then Canada has ceded the Arctic waters to another nation.

SSK's cannot patrol the arctic credibly - sure they can dip in for a bit - but they need to surface - and generally no SSK is designed for ice penetration, at least multi year pack ice.
Add that in to no credible ice breaker - I mean year round arctic patrol capable.

Possession is 9/10th the law, Armed Possession is the other 10th.

I would suggest if Canada wants to keep the arctic waters, then it needs to not just ignore the concept of SSN's.

Frankly, I don't think my tax dollars should go to defend Canadian territory - and I am Canadian by birth - I'm American by naturalization (and tax burden ;) ) It's done right now simply because it is in our (America) best interests --

At a certain point in time, someone is going to start encroaching the arctic in a possessive way - it may be us, or worse folks that aren't nearly as social neighbors.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
472
Points
1,010

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
240
Points
710
The problem is then Canada has ceded the Arctic waters to another nation.

SSK's cannot patrol the arctic credibly - sure they can dip in for a bit - but they need to surface - and generally no SSK is designed for ice penetration, at least multi year pack ice.
Add that in to no credible ice breaker - I mean year round arctic patrol capable.

Possession is 9/10th the law, Armed Possession is the other 10th.

I would suggest if Canada wants to keep the arctic waters, then it needs to not just ignore the concept of SSN's.

Frankly, I don't think my tax dollars should go to defend Canadian territory - and I am Canadian by birth - I'm American by naturalization (and tax burden ;) ) It's done right now simply because it is in our (America) best interests --

At a certain point in time, someone is going to start encroaching the arctic in a possessive way - it may be us, or worse folks that aren't nearly as social neighbors.
Let's be honest...we ceded control of the Arctic waters back in 1954 when USS Nautilus was launched.

I'll be clear. If it were up to me we would get SSNs as one of our top priorities. They are one of the best assets (if not the best asset) that can truly stop China from executing an expeditionary invasion of our allies. They can bomb all they want but unless they can put a large number of heavy troops on the ground and keep them supplied by sea then they cannot project power.

We are by geography, history and politics a nation that has (and will) fight its wars with expeditionary forces. As much as I enjoy the fantasizing over what our Army could potentially look like it's clear to me that Air and Sea power (including logistics) are the areas where our focus as a military should be. Our land forces are as much as a political asset as they are a real military asset in the grand scheme of great power politics.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
611
Points
910
Let's be honest...we ceded control of the Arctic waters back in 1954 when USS Nautilus was launched.
I don't think it was as significant then as it is today, when only 1 country (an ally) had that ability.
Now many countries do have that capability, many of them less than friendly.
I'll be clear. If it were up to me we would get SSNs as one of our top priorities. They are one of the best assets (if not the best asset) that can truly stop China from executing an expeditionary invasion of our allies. They can bomb all they want but unless they can put a large number of heavy troops on the ground and keep them supplied by sea then they cannot project power.
Agreed
We are by geography, history and politics a nation that has (and will) fight its wars with expeditionary forces. As much as I enjoy the fantasizing over what our Army could potentially look like it's clear to me that Air and Sea power (including logistics) are the areas where our focus as a military should be. Our land forces are as much as a political asset as they are a real military asset in the grand scheme of great power politics.
I am in 110% agreement -- I put sea power at #1, simply because the RCN can project power at range - that the RCAF cannot.
Given the CF no longer has a CV - the ability to deploy AirPower is very limited
 

Czech_pivo

Full Member
Reaction score
123
Points
530
The problem is then Canada has ceded the Arctic waters to another nation.

SSK's cannot patrol the arctic credibly - sure they can dip in for a bit - but they need to surface - and generally no SSK is designed for ice penetration, at least multi year pack ice.
Add that in to no credible ice breaker - I mean year round arctic patrol capable.

Possession is 9/10th the law, Armed Possession is the other 10th.

I would suggest if Canada wants to keep the arctic waters, then it needs to not just ignore the concept of SSN's.

Frankly, I don't think my tax dollars should go to defend Canadian territory - and I am Canadian by birth - I'm American by naturalization (and tax burden ;) ) It's done right now simply because it is in our (America) best interests --

At a certain point in time, someone is going to start encroaching the arctic in a possessive way - it may be us, or worse folks that aren't nearly as social neighbors.

No amount of satellite coverage or underwater sensors is going to prevent others from entering ‘our’ arctic waters. I have zero doubt that it’s done now by the Americans, the Brits and most likely by the French and Russians from time to time. The Chinese are the wild card if they’ve gone in yet or not. Better to error on the side of caution and assume that they have and will begin to do so more and more.

We either spend the money and buy the right equipment to look after our own backyard or we openly admit that we are incapable of doing so and pay the Americans and Brits to do it for us. If we go that route, out goes the argument that the Northwest passage is a Canadian internal waterway - and, as a result, we will still have to spend significant money and allocate significant resources to adequately monitor/support all shipping that will navigate that passage as it becomes more and more accessible.

Question, how many trips to the high Arctic has this PM taken during the last 6yrs? How does this compare to the number of trips our last PM took? Which of these PM’s at least took the baby steps towards establishing some semblance of Canada taking its Arctic responsibilities serious through the APOS programme and Nanisivik refueling station?

Our Senate recommended back in 2017 that we purchase 12 subs, ‘equipped with air independent propulsion systems, with six vessels to be based on each coast.’ But it’s like we’ve buried our head in the sand and don’t remember this.

This same committee made the following statement regarding the AOPS, ‘fact that that these ships can only operate in the arctic from June to October and will require a coast guard escort when in the northern waters.’ Now what’s interesting to note is that HDW just went from east to west through the Arctic and it was accompanied by CCGS Pierre Radisson. Having an AOPS or two or even three located throughout the high Arctic from July-October doesn’t in any manner prohibit a SSN from being directly under them the entire trip and said AOPS from even being aware that the SSN is present, let alone being able to do anything about it. Yes it is possible that from time to time a Cyclone might be onboard during these trips but how likely is it that we don’t ‘release’ this information prior to said operations in order to prevent any embarrassing incidents on both sides?
 
Top