Topic: Protecting Canada by Sub (split fm Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy)

[Lumber]

Actually, the statement of policy was formally turned into an Agreement, the Ogdensburg Agreement, which is still in full force and effect today.

Ok, well, we could simply extricate ourselves from all international affairs but maintain a posture that deters others from taking advantage of us, and thus satisfying the US that we are doing our bit.

So if you're going to invade Canada, you have to do it by sea. And what's the best deterrant to a fleet attempting to approach our coasts?
.
.
Anyone?

[milnews.ca]

Ok, well, we could simply extricate ourselves from all international affairs but maintain a posture that deters others from taking advantage of us, and thus satisfying the US that we are doing our bit.

So if you're going to invade Canada, you have to do it by sea. And what's the best deterrant to a fleet attempting to approach our coasts?
.
.
Anyone?

I couldn't resist   

[Oldgateboatdriver]

If you say mines, my head is going to hurt from all the banging on the wall.

But if you say submarines then  .

[Bird_Gunner45]

It is indeed sarcasm; think of it as a thought experiement. Our real "strategic" asset would be to become everyone's friend, and to have a resource based export economy. Our interests are already heavily underwritten by the US, so this wouldn't be a significant change.

Canada doesn't need friends, just allies and trading partners. The terms aren't mutually exclusive. For defence, the only "friend" we require at the moment is the United States, so being part of any hegemonic alliance in which the United States, as the leading nation, is part of offers strategic advantages.

Our real choice then is if we emphasize north American defence, expeditionary operations, or half *** do both as we are now.

[Lumber]

If you say mines, my head is going to hurt from all the banging on the wall.

But if you say submarines then  .

Yes, submarines! Forget the surface fleet, forget the army. Put all of our money into building a large and advanced fleet fleet of attack submarines.

This will protect us from invasion, but it won't necessarily protect us from airborne attack on our cities, so I'm either thinking keep the fighters, or a more advanced SAM network.

Our real choice then is if we emphasize north American defence, expeditionary operations, or half *** do both as we are now.

I actually kind of like the middle option.

[milnews.ca]

Our real choice then is if we emphasize north American defence, expeditionary operations, or half *** do both as we are now.

For the win - simple question, but not easy to answer.

[Colin P]

If you say mines, my head is going to hurt from all the banging on the wall.

But if you say submarines then  .

15 nuke subs, we could dust off the old proposal 

[E.R. Campbell]

15 nuke subs, we could dust off the old proposal 

With the captains wearing kilts! 




Sorry,    but I couldn't resist.

[Oldgateboatdriver]

You just made my day, thanks: 

[Eye In The Sky]

So if you're going to invade Canada, you have to do it by sea. And what's the best deterrant to a fleet attempting to approach our coasts?
.
.
Anyone?

Arctic ice  ;  the best defence we have on our 'weakest flank'!  There is much interest, on many nations parts, in the Arctic.  That should be a huge part of our 'look 10 years forward' IMO.

[Eye In The Sky]

Yes, submarines! Forget the surface fleet, forget the army. Put all of our money into building a large and advanced fleet fleet of attack submarines.

How big, and SSN or SSK?  Mix?  What potential enemies nations/states are we protecting against and what is THEIR sub fleet org like?  The Chinese?  Russia? 

NEVER forget the Army.  Subs and planes can not, never have, and never will be able to take, and/or hold ground.

ASW is a 3-dimensional game, so I think we do need the skimmers too, if you want to talk about a serious threat from an invading force.  Keep in mind, the NORAD stuff includes some of the SLOCs/maritime stuff now too.   There is a need for Mother for the Cyclone to do her business off of too.  We will have 2 very capable ASW platforms in the RCAF with the Cyclone (Block 1? 2?..) and the Block 3 Aurora.  They work well together.  Organic helo's have a specific strength MPAs do not;  they are always close to the hot spot Mother is working.   

[SeaKingTacco]

We are also "uniquely" motivated to find and either deter or destroy to submarine.

It is unsettling, to say the least, to come home after a 2.5hr mission and find that your "airfield" has been sunk....

[Eye In The Sky]

We are also "uniquely" motivated to find and either deter or destroy to submarine.

It is unsettling, to say the least, to come home after a 2.5hr mission and find that your "airfield" has been sunk....

Ya, I guess there is that aspect the fling-wingers have to consider;  hard to imagine having to fly with no galley and hope your rolling patch of 'runway' is still on the top.. .  Just the 'no galley' part baffles me...

[Oldgateboatdriver]

What do you need a galley for?

EITS: Ever tried to get up from the pilot's seat in helicopter in flight? 

[Eye In The Sky]

What do you need a galley for?

How else can the Acousticians make us dry sensor types sandwiches and coffee while we work! 

EITS: Ever tried to get up from the pilot's seat in helicopter in flight? 

No, but I guess with no galley and bathroom, what's there to get up 'for'?  Having said that...I can't imagine flying without the ability to offload personal POL...those HIFR (right term I hope...) extended missions must suck !

Therefore, in the spirit of keeping this thread on track, I propose the following (pictured below) for the MH folks as a `mimimum standard` galley and `head for the Cyclone to enable them to support Liberal foreign policy.

   

 

[Journeyman]

Subs ...can not, never have, and never will be able to take, and/or hold ground.

Although HMCS Corner Brook tried. 

[Jarnhamar]

Although HMCS Corner Brook tried. 

genius.

[GR66]

How big, and SSN or SSK?  Mix?  What potential enemies nations/states are we protecting against and what is THEIR sub fleet org like?  The Chinese?  Russia? 

NEVER forget the Army.  Subs and planes can not, never have, and never will be able to take, and/or hold ground.

ASW is a 3-dimensional game, so I think we do need the skimmers too, if you want to talk about a serious threat from an invading force.  Keep in mind, the NORAD stuff includes some of the SLOCs/maritime stuff now too.   There is a need for Mother for the Cyclone to do her business off of too.  We will have 2 very capable ASW platforms in the RCAF with the Cyclone (Block 1? 2?..) and the Block 3 Aurora.  They work well together.  Organic helo's have a specific strength MPAs do not;  they are always close to the hot spot Mother is working.   

Do we need to actually worry about dealing with enemy subs while they are actually under the ice...or is it enough to focus on blocking entry to/exit from the ice pack?

[Thucydides]

How big, and SSN or SSK? 

Today you don't have to choose anymore! The Arihant class is an SSN sized boat with the ability to carry 4 SLBM's, or refit the missile compartment to carry 12 smaller missiles (you can imagine 12X tomahawk cruise missiles for a Western version, although in the Arihant class these are mini SLBM's). Something along these lines would be ideal as a force projection arm of the RCN. Perhaps when I am Imperator...

The underlying problem isn't that we don't know (or at least have strong opinions) what is needed, but rather that neither the electorate nor political class shoos to examine these issues or devote sufficient resources to defense as the "hard power" arm of foreign policy. Come to think of it, strangling business in a high tax, high regulatory environment cripples Canada's "soft power" arm as well. In today's National Post, for example, there is an article saying Quebec needs to dismantle its regulatory regime for maple syrup. The reason? They finally figured out that New York State alone has more maple trees than Quebec, and they will soon be able to fill the market with inexpensive maple syrup. Quebec's syrup is far too expensive because of the regulatory regime, nothing else.

So long as the Liberal vision is to milk Canadians for the benefit of the Party and its cronies, nothing is going to change, and the CF will undergo another "decade of darkness", with limited deployments to the "disaster de jour" that are horrible enough to headline the news rather than anything which engages the National Interest. (expect quite a few "bungles in the jungle" as well). Virtue signalling is not a foreign or defense policy, but that is what we will get.

[Eye In The Sky]

Do we need to actually worry about dealing with enemy subs while they are actually under the ice...or is it enough to focus on blocking entry to/exit from the ice pack?

Probably a question better answered by the guys who are the best ASW asset, and they wear Dolphins not wings.  I've never worked ASW around ice. 

However, when I think of "subs under ice" I think nuc's.  Hard to drop a kill store from the air thru ice...

[Eye In The Sky]

Today you don't have to choose anymore! The Arihant class is an SSN sized boat with the ability to carry 4 SLBM's, or refit the missile compartment to carry 12 smaller missiles (you can imagine 12X tomahawk cruise missiles for a Western version, although in the Arihant class these are mini SLBM's). Something along these lines would be ideal as a force projection arm of the RCN. Perhaps when I am Imperator...

I was thinking for a tactical/employment point.  SSN and SSK have different strengths and weaknesses, that work for and against them.  A diesel boat, sooner or later, has to snort.  They can 'sprint' but in limited fashion compared to a nuc.  Nuc's can go all day and night, but are generally noisier than a diesel boat on battery making steerage.  That kind of stuff.

So if we were to beef up our submarine force...would it be a 'primarily defensive' or 'primarily offensive' force?  Many questions to ask...I also think the average Canadian thinks the difference between 'normal' subs and 'nuclear subs' is about the weapons they carry, not what is turning the screws.

[Dolphin_Hunter]

Do we need to actually worry about dealing with enemy subs while they are actually under the ice...or is it enough to focus on blocking entry to/exit from the ice pack?

How would you block the entry/exit from the ice pack?   The only way to hunt subs under the ice is with subs under the ice.  A capability we will never have.   

The Canadian government doesn't give two shits about the north.

[George Wallace]

However, when I think of "subs under ice" I think nuc's.  Hard to drop a kill store from the air thru ice...

They, on the other hand, can shoot up through the ice.   

[Chris Pook]

Probably a question better answered by the guys who are the best ASW asset, and they wear Dolphins not wings.  I've never worked ASW around ice. 

However, when I think of "subs under ice" I think nuc's.  Hard to drop a kill store from the air thru ice...

How about emplacing CAPTORS under the ice and monitoring the field with Gliders with Sonars communicating with AOPS and LRPAs?

The gliders can remain passive, bobbing up and down under the ice, go active when they detect.  They only need to communicate if they make contact.  Then free up the Captors in the region of the contact.  No?

[Thucydides]

I was thinking for a tactical/employment point.  SSN and SSK have different strengths and weaknesses, that work for and against them.  A diesel boat, sooner or later, has to snort.  They can 'sprint' but in limited fashion compared to a nuc.  Nuc's can go all day and night, but are generally noisier than a diesel boat on battery making steerage.  That kind of stuff.

So if we were to beef up our submarine force...would it be a 'primarily defensive' or 'primarily offensive' force?  Many questions to ask...I also think the average Canadian thinks the difference between 'normal' subs and 'nuclear subs' is about the weapons they carry, not what is turning the screws.

Too true about how Canadians and uneducated people in general act when you say "nuclear submarine".

The example I chose is one of the smaller nuclear submarines in service, so it gives the owner the long range and sprint capabilities needed to cover large areas of ocean. In the Canadian context, we do indeed have lots of area to cover, not to mention out affiliations with things like NATO task forces, which require getting across the ocean to marry up with the fleet. All this is outside of the other obvious need to operate near or even under the arctic ice.

Since the Arihant class also carried long range weapons (SLBM's or mini SLBMs), it means any similar capital ship outfitted the same way become that much more potent and flexible. It is capable of both tactical (anti-ship) and strategic missions, and being a submarine, will be very difficult to detect or counter. While still relatively large as submarines (@ 6,000 tonnes displacement vs 2,900 tonnes for the Sōryū-class submarine or 2,050 tons for the Israeli Dolphin class submarines), the flexibility of nuclear power makes it a logical choice for a Canadian capital ship all other factors being equal.

Since it is very clear all other factors are not equal, this is more of a thought experiment than anything else.