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

Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class

suffolkowner

Sr. Member
Reaction score
102
Points
430
The Aussies Collins replacement has been a bit of an adventure so far but clearly there were huge issues with Naval Group. I don't think there will be any credibility issues arising from it though


It does open up the possibility of us getting in on some used Collins as we like to do, or if we decide we want to go the in the nuclear direction as well I hear the UK has a few kicking around


On the creation of a 3 eyes within the 5 eyes, I think this is a long time coming to be honest and we really are on the way to being the NZ of the north. A shared cultural heritage is not enough when we can't be trusted or counted on to do the bare minimum
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
715
Points
1,010
Few things on this.

1- the French did this to themselves. They were unable or unwilling to bend on IP or local contract considerations. The French have always and will always want full control over their toys. I refer everyone to their "CSC bid". Canada wouldn't bend on IP or local contracts. They had a hissy fit and pulled out and tried to embarrass the government in the process.

2-The trilateral intelligence-sharing deal is all smoke and mirrors. Anyone who's ever worked in the security or intelligence circles for any length of time knows that side deals and meetings are happening whenever they are convenient or necessary. Five eyes is still fine. Canada didn't miss out because we have no strategic presence in the area.
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,174
Points
1,010
Few things on this.

1- the French did this to themselves. They were unable or unwilling to bend on IP or local contract considerations. The French have always and will always want full control over their toys. I refer everyone to their "CSC bid". Canada wouldn't bend on IP or local contracts. They had a hissy fit and pulled out and tried to embarrass the government in the process.

2-The trilateral intelligence-sharing deal is all smoke and mirrors. Anyone who's ever worked in the security or intelligence circles for any length of time knows that side deals and meetings are happening whenever they are convenient or necessary. Five eyes is still fine. Canada didn't miss out because we have no strategic presence in the area.
And it is not just 5Eyes. Go to any NATO meeting ,the sidelines chicanery is off the charts.
 

Czech_pivo

Full Member
Reaction score
128
Points
530
Few things on this.

1- the French did this to themselves. They were unable or unwilling to bend on IP or local contract considerations. The French have always and will always want full control over their toys. I refer everyone to their "CSC bid". Canada wouldn't bend on IP or local contracts. They had a hissy fit and pulled out and tried to embarrass the government in the process.

2-The trilateral intelligence-sharing deal is all smoke and mirrors. Anyone who's ever worked in the security or intelligence circles for any length of time knows that side deals and meetings are happening whenever they are convenient or necessary. Five eyes is still fine. Canada didn't miss out because we have no strategic presence in the area.
We do have a west coast and we do have an arctic, so don’t we have a need for a strategic presence in the area?
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
715
Points
1,010
We do have a west coast and we do have an arctic, so don’t we have a need for a strategic presence in the area?
We have an interest, not a strategic presence. Does the presence of a Canadian warship change the strategic calculus of the region? Nope, it registers for some, but it's not going to change any decision-making in Bejing, Washington, or Canberra.

As for a need? I think that we'll let the ones who have a need to control the area (Japan, Korea, China, Australia, US) run the show and back the ones that are most aligned with Canada's interests. Our export to China, Japan, ASEAN all together are ~ $40 billion. European exports are ~$30 billion

Exports to the US and Mexico are about $362 billion. So Asia is less than 10% of our income, and frankly the trade disparity is much in their favour. So yah, no strategic presence required. Losing all of the trade markets to Asia is not something that we need to be overly concerned about outside of special interest industries. Fortress NA would carry on with a recession but not a disaster.

(note its likely better to look at trade balance but I didn't have the time to deep dive on it.)
 
Last edited:

Czech_pivo

Full Member
Reaction score
128
Points
530
We have an interest, not a strategic presence. Does the presence of a Canadian warship change the strategic calculus of the region? Nope, it registers for some, but it's not going to change any decision-making in Bejing, Washington, or Canberra.
Understood.
Just so I better understand the definition of 'strategic presence', we basically aren't able to provide a strategic presence pretty much any where outside the land borders of Canada that might change/alter the decision-making in Bejing, Moscow or Washington. Is that a fair statement?
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
715
Points
1,010
Shorthand yes. We don't change the calculus in the South China sea. This is why we value alliances so much. Because we can contribute together as a team.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,490
Points
940
We have an interest, not a strategic presence. Does the presence of a Canadian warship change the strategic calculus of the region? Nope, it registers for some, but it's not going to change any decision-making in Bejing, Washington, or Canberra.

As for a need? I think that we'll let the ones who have a need to control the area (Japan, Korea, China, Australia, US) run the show and back the ones that are most aligned with Canada's interests. Our export to China, Japan, ASEAN all together are ~ $40 billion. European exports are ~$30 billion

Exports to the US and Mexico are about $362 billion. So Asia is less than 10% of our income, and frankly the trade disparity is much in their favour. So yah, no strategic presence required. Losing all of the trade markets to Asia is not something that we need to be overly concerned about outside of special interest industries. Fortress NA would carry on with a recession but not a disaster.

(note its likely better to look at trade balance but I didn't have the time to deep dive on it.)
The presence of a Canadian warship is basically a signal of solidarity with other allied nations. The CCP actively works to undermine alliances that it does not like to make themselves more powerful. From a pure military standpoint, even a new CSC is a minimal increase in firepower, but from a geopolitical standpoint it has a much greater effect. For the Pacific, I would focus on new and better subs and have two AOR's to support allied vessel movements.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,472
Points
910
The presence of a Canadian warship is basically a signal of solidarity with other allied nations. The CCP LPC under JT actively works to undermine alliances that it does not like to make themselves more powerful. From a pure military standpoint, even a new CSC is a minimal increase in firepower, but from a geopolitical standpoint it has a much greater effect. For the Pacific, I would focus on new and better subs and have two AOR's to support allied vessel movements.
FTFY
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
565
Points
1,060
September 1


September 15


September 21

Daily Express usual tabloid imprecision conflating nuclear powered subs with nuclear weapons but Australia as an Astute base is intriguing.
I wonder if the Brits would be interested in making Newfoundland an offer it can't refuse? Welcome home? Although I think it more likely Westminster would offer the Shetlands and the Orkneys independence from Scotland with the same Crown Dependency status as the Channel Islands and Man with the proviso that Scapa Flow or similar be reinvigorated as home for the RN in the north. Scapa was home for the Home Fleet until 1957.


BORIS JOHNSON is considering moving Britain's nuclear-powered submarines to Australia to boost the UK's influence in the region​

Scotland could lose nuclear weapons base in plans eyed by Boris following Aukus deal​

BORIS JOHNSON is considering moving Britain's nuclear-powered submarines to Australia to boost the UK's influence in the region.​


Ministers are understood to be hoping to use the Aukus defence pact with Australia and the US to create a new base in the Indo-Pacific region. Under the plans the Navy's £1.4billion Astute-class attack submarines would undergo maintenance in Australia rather than the Faslane naval base in Scotland.

It would allow the nuclear deterrent to remain deployed in the region for longer periods of time, boosting Britain's presence in the region.
The plans would also help to reduce the UK's reliance on the Scotland base should SNP attempts for independence be successful in the future.


The Prime Minister has spoken repeatedly about the need for the UK to shift its focus to the Indo-Pacific, warning it will become the "geopolitical centre of the world" in the decades ahead.


He sees solidifying partnerships with countries in the region as vital for Britain's foreign policy aims.


The Aukus agreement announced last week is seen by ministers as a major step forward in cementing the UK's influence.
As part of the pact, the UK and US will help Australia build its nuclear submarines.

Plans to carry out deep maintenance on Britain's own fleet would be realised once Canberra has started to build its own deterrent.
A source told The Times the Aukus deal "opens up opportunities" for the UK.
They added: "You’ve got another base.
"If you want to have more of a persistent presence you need access to maintenance."
Currently, most submarines are deployed for missions of four to five months before being required to return to Scotland.
By working with Australia, a defence source said submarines would be able to carry out maintenance without being required to travel "all the way round the world".
They said: "Having the option of another location where you can not just berth but do maintenance is a good thing.
"They are like lily pads — there aren’t many of them."
Last week Mr Johnson said: "If there was ever any question about what global Britain’s tilt towards the Indo-Pacific would mean in reality or what capabilities we might offer, then this partnership with Australia and the US provides the answer.
"It amounts to a new pillar of a strategy demonstrating Britain’s generational commitment to the security of the Indo-Pacific and showing exactly how we can help one of our oldest friends to preserve regional stability."
Claims of plans to carry out maintenance on nuclear submarines in Australia comes just weeks after it emerged the UK is looking at housing the nuclear deterrent abroad if Scotland becomes independent.

The SNP opposes nuclear weapons and has made clear they want them out of Scotland.

Senior officials are reported to have drawn up contingency plans in case Scotland leaves the UK.
Under the precautionary measures, weapons could be moved to allied naval bases.
The Ministry of Defence has denied plans to move nuclear weapons.
 
Last edited:

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,167
Points
940
I wonder if the Brits would be interested in making Newfoundland an offer it can't refuse?
It'd have to go through the Canadian govt, which would be problematic if we're not part of AUKUS.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
565
Points
1,060
It'd have to go through the Canadian govt, which would be problematic if we're not part of AUKUS.

It would have to? Would it though?

Opportunities abound in a world of chaos.:giggle:
 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
627
Points
910
It'd have to go through the Canadian govt, which would be problematic if we're not part of AUKUS.
I mean they could just seize NewFoundland - we've seen the RCAF and RCN can't do much to stop anyone...
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
565
Points
1,060
…or enacted good ‘ole Ch.33 of Ye Olde Charter… 😉


Just think. If they had kept their 1949 status they could have ended up in the same leagues as The Isle of Man, The Bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey, The Turks and Caicos, The Caymans and Bermuda - but with oil and gas as well.

Come to that - I offer a new United Kingdom

England
Wales
Scotland

Northern Ireland

Man
Guernsey
Jersey

Orkneys
Shetland
(Hebrides?)
(All three as the Sudreyjar?)

Gibraltar
Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia

Bermuda
Turks and Caicos
Caymans
British Virgin Islands
Montserrat
Anguilla

Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha,
Falkland Islands
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
British Antarctic Territory

British Indian Ocean Territory

Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands

United Kingdom of the Isles?

There are a lot of Commonwealth island countries, especially in the Pacific, like Fiji and Samoa, that maintain really close ties and might be in the market for a better deal.

A puzzlement

the-king-and-i-yul-bryner.gif
 

Pelorus

Member
Reaction score
98
Points
430
Thank you for your advice, however I must point out that JT did say he had an admiration for China's dictatorship.

While I would prefer to see the country run by someone other than the current Prime Minister, context is important even if the comment itself was stupid:

"You know, there’s a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say ‘we need to go green fastest…we need to start investing in solar.’ I mean there is a flexibility that I know Stephen Harper must dream about of having a dictatorship that he can do everything he wanted that I find quite interesting."

"But if I were to reach out and say which … which kind of administration I most admire, I think there’s something to be said right here in Canada for the way our territories are run. Nunavut, Northwest Territories, and the Yukon are done without political parties around consensus. And are much more like a municipal government. And I think there’s a lot to be said for people pulling together to try and solve issues rather than to score points off of each other. And I think we need a little more of that.”




Underway is 100% correct here. While I am consistently impressed by your ability to ram a random rant about Trudeau Jr or Snr into almost every thread on this forum that wouldn't otherwise be discussing politics, it's very tiresome.

The main thing that separates this forum from every other disgruntled boomer vet Facebook group out there is the fact that the threads about technical and strategic issues are civil, mostly on-topic, and bring people to the table with subject-matter expertise and interesting perspectives of the matters being discussed. Please don't ruin it for the rest of us.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,472
Points
910
While I would prefer to see the country run by someone other than the current Prime Minister, context is important even if the comment itself was stupid:

"You know, there’s a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say ‘we need to go green fastest…we need to start investing in solar.’ I mean there is a flexibility that I know Stephen Harper must dream about of having a dictatorship that he can do everything he wanted that I find quite interesting."

"But if I were to reach out and say which … which kind of administration I most admire, I think there’s something to be said right here in Canada for the way our territories are run. Nunavut, Northwest Territories, and the Yukon are done without political parties around consensus. And are much more like a municipal government. And I think there’s a lot to be said for people pulling together to try and solve issues rather than to score points off of each other. And I think we need a little more of that.”




Underway is 100% correct here. While I am consistently impressed by your ability to ram a random rant about Trudeau Jr or Snr into almost every thread on this forum that wouldn't otherwise be discussing politics, it's very tiresome.

The main thing that separates this forum from every other disgruntled boomer vet Facebook group out there is the fact that the threads about technical and strategic issues are civil, mostly on-topic, and bring people to the table with subject-matter expertise and interesting perspectives of the matters being discussed. Please don't ruin it for the rest of us.
Have a good day - my apologies. I will cease this anti Trudeau rant.
 
Last edited:
Top