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

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Not necessarily Colin.

First of all, the Australians would be more than happy, I am sure to sell some Australian built subs to an especially suitable purchaser such as Canada. Second of all, their plan is already for 12 subs, the last four of which would be replacement for the first four. If Canada was to accept to buy six, and Australia accepted to intersperse, and shorten the production times a bit, you could do this in the same time as that required for, say building 14 boats.

For instance, instead of building one sub every 30 months - i.e. 12 subs over 30 years, you could build 18 subs over 34 years (one every 23 months - quite doable). In order it would be something like AUS, AUS, CAN, AUS, CAN, AUS, AUS, CAN, CAN, AUS, AUS, CAN, AUS, CAN, AUS, AUS, AUS, AUS.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You know that's way to logical, don't you....?

I certainly hope you are right.

 

[Underway]

Rethinking Nuclear Subs article from Frontline magazine.  It has many of the arguments that have been presented here before, but has a good historical overview and world overview of current nuclear submarine powers.  I didn't know Brazil was looking to get into the nuke business but that makes sense given its rising place in the world. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Rethought and moved post to the Status on Victoria-class subs thread.