"MILITARY EXPERT SPEAKS"

[SeaKingTacco]

Buckahed and Gobsmacked- well done for two excellent posts.

Buckahed:   Keep the faith, buddy.   There are alot of people out there who do understand and support submarine ops.   They just don't get a lot of face time on TV, cause that wouldn't be good for ratings.

cynic mode off...

 

[enfield]

Submarines are of course a valuable part of naval warfare, and a requirement for a serious Navy. And, no one can doubt the proffessionalism and dedication of the sailors who man them.

However....
We have three submarines, which at some point, someone made the decision to purchase. At some point, someone in the military also decided that we did NOT need: tanks, troop-transporting helicopters, serious air-air refuelling, strategic air or sea lift, an Airborne regiment or elite/QRF light Inf capability, etc.
I fail to see why we need submarines more than we need tanks, or Chinooks, or possibly a decent ammo budget for the year, or maybe enough kit to equip a uni going to Haiti.
Do we need subs to exercise sovereignty over our waters? No, surface ships can do that. Do we need sub's to monitor our territorial waters for fishing and smuggling? Aurora's and frigate and CPF's can do that. Do we need subs to protect our coastline or shipping routes from enemies? No, we have the USN for that. Do we need subs to fight a major naval conflict? If we're building a Navy to fight a major blue-water engagement, I think we're spending in the wrong place.
Granted, subs could make an important contribution to any of the above missions - but are they necessary? The issue is not if subs are important, the issue is are subs MORE important then any number of other capabilities that could also use a $750million infusion?

The decision to purchase subs, to me, represents an ad hoc system of capabilities and major systems purchasing that is indicative of Canada's lack of a serious up-to-date defence policy. If Ottawa had a thought out, long term policy that stated the primacy of the Navy and a priority for coastal defence, and a limited, peacekeeping/boyscout role for the army, and an air force dedicated to shooting down errant airliners, I could be happier.  In the end, someone decided that submarines are a more important weapon systems to Canada's national security for the next 25 years than troop transporting helicopters or MBT's. We have a limited defence budget, and we can't have all the gear and equipment we want, and in reality where we have to pick and choose which capabilities we want to invest in. Whether submarines were the right capability to place limited funds into is debatable.

 

[Infanteer]

are subs MORE important then any number of other capabilities that could also use a $750million infusion?

According to McCallum, the National Daycare System somehow fits into the "other capabilities" pile.... :-\

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Do we need subs to protect our coastline or shipping routes from enemies? No, we have the USN for that.

That's funny, I missed the session of parliament when we voted that the US would now be responsible for maintaining our sovreignty (which is, of course, an oxymoron).

It has been said before and will be said again on this forum- We (Canada) are solely responsible for own sovreignty.   Period. Full stop.   And that ain't cheap.   We work in an Alliance and can have debates about what kind of equipment to buy for our military or roles to fill, but we shouldn't be making statements like "someone else (usually the US) is just going to do it for us".   That is not what grown-up nations say or do.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Enfield said:

We have three submarines, which at some point, someone made the decision to purchase. At some point, someone in the military also decided that we did NOT need: tanks, troop-transporting helicopters, serious air-air refuelling, strategic air or sea lift, an Airborne regiment or elite/QRF light Inf capability, etc.

I didn't realize we were playing tit for tat. So you feel its justifed that if one service to lose a capbility all the others should as well? Btw we have 4 subs as Chitcoutimi has not been written off yet.

[quoteI fail to see why we need submarines more than we need tanks, or Chinooks, or possibly a decent ammo budget for the year, or maybe enough kit to equip a uni going to Haiti. If you understood naval warfare and the three tenets of it you would. 1) Above 2) On 3) Under

Do we need subs to exercise sovereignty over our waters?

Yes surface ships can do it but sometimes its even better to protect your territory covertly.

Do we need sub's to monitor our territorial waters for fishing and smuggling?

See above

Do we need subs to protect our coastline or shipping routes from enemies No, we have the USN for that.

Thanks for volunteering the USN as if they don't have enough to do already.   : Again if you knew anything about naval warfare or have read the past posts about submarines and their uses in warfare you would not be making so many out to lunch statements.

Do we need subs to fight a major naval conflict?

WW1 and WW2 should be your guide to that. As much as I hate to admit it, the submarine is the ultimate naval weapon.

We do need a Defence Review desperately but going by way of niche roles is stupid. What if the goverment decided that it did not want to have a combat capable force and instead focus on logistics and communications. Entirely possible, would you be supportive of niche roles then? I dare say you would not be.