Cue a timely written article -
"Unless Canada substantially stepped up in another defence area, “
getting out of the sub business would mean that our friends and allies (and, of course, those who oppose our friends and allies)
would take Canada even less seriously in defence matters than they do now,”
"It would also “effectively cede operational control over our coastal and Arctic waters to others,” both allies and enemies, Nossal added."
- Not sure I agree with this (but I will let others with vastly more experience weigh in on this) because even with the 4 subs we have now we don't have operational control over the Arctic waters, they are not able to patrol throughout the entire region at all and the new AOPS's cannot as well, so do we have operational control over our entire Arctic?
"
We need to move forward with a viable program to replace the current capability,” said Norman.
- Replacing our 'current capability' will not address the short-fall in operating throughout our entire Arctic under the ice.
“T
he idea that Canada could return to its 1950s past of relying on US or UK submarines to undertake these missions on our behalf is myopic.”
- Refer to the recent comments on the Arctic by the British top military commander.
Given the build-up in submarine fleets by countries like China and Russia, 'Canada’s ability to exert influence in its vast maritime domain will be tested'
nationalpost.com
EDIT-
I'd like to point out the phase
'Canada’s ability to exert influence in its vast maritime domain will be tested' in the title of the article. It says
'exert influence', it doesn't say
'control' or
'ability to have a strategic presence' or
'defend' or 'maintain sovereignty' - its a statement implying that we don't have any of the above.