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

Replacing the Subs

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
666
Points
1,010
No amount of satellite coverage or underwater sensors is going to prevent others from entering ‘our’ arctic waters. I have zero doubt that it’s done now by the Americans, the Brits and most likely by the French and Russians from time to time. The Chinese are the wild card if they’ve gone in yet or not. Better to error on the side of caution and assume that they have and will begin to do so more and more.

We either spend the money and buy the right equipment to look after our own backyard or we openly admit that we are incapable of doing so and pay the Americans and Brits to do it for us. If we go that route, out goes the argument that the Northwest passage is a Canadian internal waterway - and, as a result, we will still have to spend significant money and allocate significant resources to adequately monitor/support all shipping that will navigate that passage as it becomes more and more accessible.... I guess it comes down to whether Canada wants to be a sovereign nation or not. Because right now it doesn't feel like we are.
 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,491
Points
1,140
A few years old, but it talks about Trudeau’s lack of vision for the Arctic just a short time period after his first election and nothing has really changed since then.

 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
6,611
Points
1,110
No amount of satellite coverage or underwater sensors is going to prevent others from entering ‘our’ arctic waters. I have zero doubt that it’s done now by the Americans, the Brits and most likely by the French and Russians from time to time. The Chinese are the wild card if they’ve gone in yet or not. Better to error on the side of caution and assume that they have and will begin to do so more and more.
Agreed

We either spend the money and buy the right equipment to look after our own backyard or we openly admit that we are incapable of doing so and pay the Americans and Brits to do it for us. If we go that route, out goes the argument that the Northwest passage is a Canadian internal waterway - and, as a result, we will still have to spend significant money and allocate significant resources to adequately monitor/support all shipping that will navigate that passage as it becomes more and more accessible.
110%

Question, how many trips to the high Arctic has this PM taken during the last 6yrs? How does this compare to the number of trips our last PM took? Which of these PM’s at least took the baby steps towards establishing some semblance of Canada taking its Arctic responsibilities serious through the APOS programme and Nanisivik refueling station?
AOPS to me is at best a CG type vessel - a 25mm cannon and 2 M2 .50's doesn't make it a warship - to me it is honestly a sad joke that some feel it is a credible effort at all. A four month window for operations is a 75% fail rate.
Now allegedly that class can operate longer, based on the Ice Class of the hull, so it seems to me that this is a downrating to ensure the ships last longer - as opposed to a legitimate construction limitation.


Our Senate recommended back in 2017 that we purchase 12 subs, ‘equipped with air independent propulsion systems, with six vessels to be based on each coast.’ But it’s like we’ve buried our head in the sand and don’t remember this.
Roll back 40 years and I think you see the same thing outlined...
This same committee made the following statement regarding the AOPS, ‘fact that that these ships can only operate in the arctic from June to October and will require a coast guard escort when in the northern waters.’ Now what’s interesting to note is that HDW just went from east to west through the Arctic and it was accompanied by CCGS Pierre Radisson. Having an AOPS or two or even three located throughout the high Arctic from July-October doesn’t in any manner prohibit a SSN from being directly under them the entire trip and said AOPS from even being aware that the SSN is present, let alone being able to do anything about it. Yes it is possible that from time to time a Cyclone might be onboard during these trips but how likely is it that we don’t ‘release’ this information prior to said operations in order to prevent any embarrassing incidents on both sides?
Unless the SSN is blind and deaf - if it doesn't want to be found - the Cyclone on one of those won't matter, unless it's open water.

The larger issue to me is what SSN's can be leaving behind - if no one knows you are there -- no one can point a finger at you if you leave a nasty surprise for someone.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
6,611
Points
1,110
A few years old, but it talks about Trudeau’s lack of vision for the Arctic just a short time period after his first election and nothing has really changed since then.

Last week - probably the clearest point that Canadians don't even have an understanding of what they are and the relationship to the North.
 

Maxman1

Full Member
Reaction score
284
Points
930
Not necessarily. The competition was ongoing at the time & somehow still is.

No, we were going to buy 18 Super Hornets, but that deal is dead. And it is retaliation for Boeing's complaint about Bombardier dumping the CSeries in the US.

A parade of Liberal cabinet ministers — from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on down — have repeatedly said Boeing is no longer "a trusted partner" in the defence sector, and the government wouldn't be doing business with them.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,512
Points
940
/realism check/

New / more MPAs; not going to happen any time soon. I'm CRA in 2030...I'll be in my 70s, I suspect, when Canada sees new MPAs IF Canada sees new MPAs. We have a small fleet now. 14 is small. Tiny. I suspect we'll see less of them in the 2040s than 14.

Arctic surveillance; I hope to christ we're not pinning the AOPS/Cyclone "team" as our spear up there.

Canada isn't, hasn't and likely won't take the Arctic stuff serious until it is too late; which was a date in the past IMO. That's not a random belief, but based on info that'll never be disclosed here. Not bragging, or being a dick. Just stating a fact without the ability to back it up for obvious reasons.

Someone said a few pages back "Canadians care about defence matters" or words to that effect. Sorry...but no, they don't including the Arctic. They will show up and "Ohhhh Ahhhhhh!" for the Snowbirds and (some of them, less and less yearly) show up for Nov 11th...but, on average I don't believe for 1 second the average Canadian cares seriously about defense.

And as long as they don't, the average politician won't because, first and foremost, they care about keeping their jobs.

We're behind when it comes to 'all things arctic' and we will not catch up.

//realism check//
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
3,328
Points
1,260
It's an Australian article, but this fits better here than in the Aussie sub thread.

 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,491
Points
1,140
/realism check/

New / more MPAs; not going to happen any time soon. I'm CRA in 2030...I'll be in my 70s, I suspect, when Canada sees new MPAs IF Canada sees new MPAs. We have a small fleet now. 14 is small. Tiny. I suspect we'll see less of them in the 2040s than 14.

Arctic surveillance; I hope to christ we're not pinning the AOPS/Cyclone "team" as our spear up there.

Canada isn't, hasn't and likely won't take the Arctic stuff serious until it is too late; which was a date in the past IMO. That's not a random belief, but based on info that'll never be disclosed here. Not bragging, or being a dick. Just stating a fact without the ability to back it up for obvious reasons.

Someone said a few pages back "Canadians care about defence matters" or words to that effect. Sorry...but no, they don't including the Arctic. They will show up and "Ohhhh Ahhhhhh!" for the Snowbirds and (some of them, less and less yearly) show up for Nov 11th...but, on average I don't believe for 1 second the average Canadian cares seriously about defense.

And as long as they don't, the average politician won't because, first and foremost, they care about keeping their jobs.

We're behind when it comes to 'all things arctic' and we will not catch up.

//realism check//
I know someone who goes up to the Arctic every second summer for the entire navigation season for the purposes of mapping the seabed and such. He’s told me that he has personally seen old Soviet navigation maps pre-1990 that were much more accurate and detailed than the maps they were using 25yrs later - all within Canadian waters.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
6,611
Points
1,110
It's an Australian article, but this fits better here than in the Aussie sub thread.

I think it is a terrible article.
His early demise of the Battleship occurs not in 1916, but in 1941 in Pearl Harbor on the 7th of December.
During WW2 - the Aircraft Carrier and AirPower where the predominant force - it was only at the very end of the war did the Submarine truly take over.

In as much as he gave a near 40 year "advance" to beginning the age of the Submarine - I believe he is sadly mistaken on the end of the age as well.

For years Subs have had countermeasures and decoys - now there are RPV that can be controlled from elsewhere -- but "launched" from a Sub -- all they need is an activation signal - and they can do what they do -- either start active counter sub hunting, raise to the surface and launch ASM's or SAM's - or drop hundred of mines, or countermeasures.

The future of warfare is fairly scary - as the size and capabilities of robotic systems is changing dramatically - from house fly sized spy drones - to large warships that are entirely automated and use their AI to do battle management.


I wouldn't count the sub out yet -- mainly as it offers a lot of potential - if only as a host vehicle for a slew of "CyberSubs"
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
712
Points
1,040
/realism check/

New / more MPAs; not going to happen any time soon. I'm CRA in 2030...I'll be in my 70s, I suspect, when Canada sees new MPAs IF Canada sees new MPAs. We have a small fleet now. 14 is small. Tiny. I suspect we'll see less of them in the 2040s than 14.

Arctic surveillance; I hope to christ we're not pinning the AOPS/Cyclone "team" as our spear up there.

Canada isn't, hasn't and likely won't take the Arctic stuff serious until it is too late; which was a date in the past IMO. That's not a random belief, but based on info that'll never be disclosed here. Not bragging, or being a dick. Just stating a fact without the ability to back it up for obvious reasons.

Someone said a few pages back "Canadians care about defence matters" or words to that effect. Sorry...but no, they don't including the Arctic. They will show up and "Ohhhh Ahhhhhh!" for the Snowbirds and (some of them, less and less yearly) show up for Nov 11th...but, on average I don't believe for 1 second the average Canadian cares seriously about defense.

And as long as they don't, the average politician won't because, first and foremost, they care about keeping their jobs.

We're behind when it comes to 'all things arctic' and we will not catch up.

//realism check//
Is the highlighted bit based on your opinion of where you see current Defence priorities? The ability of the RCAF to man, maintain (and potentially expand) the fleet due to recruiting shortfalls/training bottlenecks/retention issues? Both? Something else?

I agree with you that it doesn't currently seem to be a priority for either the RCAF or the Government, but in my opinion from both a defence of Canada point of view and a useful contribution to our allies point of view it should be a very high priority.

I also think it's likely a capability that would be a fairly easy sell to the public. After all, MPA's aren't painted green and look much more like that nice metal thing that flies you somewhere sunny than a nasty, killey thing packed with explodey stuff...
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
9,166
Points
1,160
I wouldn't count the sub out yet -- mainly as it offers a lot of potential - if only as a host vehicle for a slew of "CyberSubs" Navy fashion statements.

There, FTFY :)

Animated GIF
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,130
Points
1,060
I think it is a terrible article.
His early demise of the Battleship occurs not in 1916, but in 1941 in Pearl Harbor on the 7th of December.
During WW2 - the Aircraft Carrier and AirPower where the predominant force - it was only at the very end of the war did the Submarine truly take over.

In as much as he gave a near 40 year "advance" to beginning the age of the Submarine - I believe he is sadly mistaken on the end of the age as well.

For years Subs have had countermeasures and decoys - now there are RPV that can be controlled from elsewhere -- but "launched" from a Sub -- all they need is an activation signal - and they can do what they do -- either start active counter sub hunting, raise to the surface and launch ASM's or SAM's - or drop hundred of mines, or countermeasures.

The future of warfare is fairly scary - as the size and capabilities of robotic systems is changing dramatically - from house fly sized spy drones - to large warships that are entirely automated and use their AI to do battle management.


I wouldn't count the sub out yet -- mainly as it offers a lot of potential - if only as a host vehicle for a slew of "CyberSubs"
Even then the ability of naval air power to sink a BB outside of a harbour is overrated. Most BB's underway were sunk by larger more powerful land based aircraft, rather than carrier aircraft of the day. BB served two purposes in later stages of WWII, shore bombardment and Task Force protection from both surface threats and aircraft and they did very well at such. Had the atomic bomb not worked, BB's would have played a critical role in protecting the landings and forces operating in the coastal areas.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
934
Points
1,090
I think it is a terrible article.
His early demise of the Battleship occurs not in 1916, but in 1941 in Pearl Harbor on the 7th of December.
During WW2 - the Aircraft Carrier and AirPower where the predominant force - it was only at the very end of the war did the Submarine truly take over.

In as much as he gave a near 40 year "advance" to beginning the age of the Submarine - I believe he is sadly mistaken on the end of the age as well.

For years Subs have had countermeasures and decoys - now there are RPV that can be controlled from elsewhere -- but "launched" from a Sub -- all they need is an activation signal - and they can do what they do -- either start active counter sub hunting, raise to the surface and launch ASM's or SAM's - or drop hundred of mines, or countermeasures.

The future of warfare is fairly scary - as the size and capabilities of robotic systems is changing dramatically - from house fly sized spy drones - to large warships that are entirely automated and use their AI to do battle management.


I wouldn't count the sub out yet -- mainly as it offers a lot of potential - if only as a host vehicle for a slew of "CyberSubs"
Agree yet again on everything said here.

December 7, 1941 was Pearl Harbour. No point in me expanding on that, everybody here is already well versed on what it was, what it represented, and the roots of change that were planted.

December 10, 1941 was the sinking of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse, by torpedo bombers & land based aircraft in the South Pacific.

(I believe near Malaysia? I can’t Google it until I’m back from work.)


These 2 engagements, basically back to back, both saw carrier based aircraft attack and sink large, heavily armed, and heavily armoured warships. They demonstrated a vulnerability that hadn’t been exploited until then.

Throughout WW2, there were several engagements of naval heavy hitters slugging it out. They weren’t obsolete when it came to force protection, and could unleash absolute hell at the enemy.


Same goes for the submarine. Everybody is rushing to build as many submarines as possible - the Americans and the Russians both building extremely advanced and quiet boats that could unilaterally destroy half the cities on the globe if they so chose to.

In addition to the clear advantages submarines have over surface ships, KevinB is right. They can deploy mini-subs which can sever fibre optic cables, serve as sensing platforms, roam around hunting for signatures of other submarines, and even engage them. (If not currently at that point, very soon to be.)

They have clear advantages when it comes to hiding from satellite images. Any remotely interested state will find your surface ships fairly easily just with open-source satellite info, not to mention dedicated military satellites. Heck they could do some digging on Instagram and get a good idea of where most of them are.


The author seems to be the only one who thinks submarines are going to become relics.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,512
Points
940
Is the highlighted bit based on your opinion of where you see current Defence priorities? The ability of the RCAF to man, maintain (and potentially expand) the fleet due to recruiting shortfalls/training bottlenecks/retention issues? Both? Something else?

It's not related to trg abilities/capability, though that is negatively affected or impacts the small fleet as well. That's a separate topic though.

- Canada announced the intent publicly to keep the fleet flying operationally until 2030 years ago. CP-140 Aurora fleet modernization and life extension - Canada.ca

- some major money was spent to "modernize" the Aurora....because the powers that "were" at the time rightly believed it was "upgrade, or say good-bye to"....

- why do I think it will be beyond 2030? Cyclone...fighter replacement....massive debt from the Liberals....the list could go on.

- why less than 14 aircraft? We make "doing more with less" a specialty. 33 Argus...18 Aurora's....the "a more capable aircraft can do the same as 2 lesser aircraft" is misleading and inaccurate with no context. We had way more capability back in the Argus days than we do today....

- we missed the boat to replace our fleet when "everyone else was". Norway, New Zealand, UK...all the folks who take this a little more seriously are saying "thanks, enjoy retirement" to their P-3s.

Recruiting people to crew aircraft is pretty easy compared to some other trades. I think we'd overcome the trg limitations if we had the aircraft to crew...but we don't.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,850
Points
1,060
With respect to us being a northern nation.

RCAF Forward Operating Locations

Kuujjuaq 58N
Yellowknife 62N
Rankin Inlet 63N
Iqaluit 64N
Inuvik 68N

For Reference

Arctic Circle 67N

Nanisivik Refuelling Centre 73N
Arctic Training Centre Resolute 75N
Alert 82N

Anchorage 61N
Fairbanks 65N
Thule 77N

Reykjavik 64N
Tromsoe 69N
Longyearbyen (Svalbard) 78N

Alexandra Island (New Russian Base) - 81N

Edmonton 53N

Even our natives barely make it into the Arctic Circle. Disneyland and Disneyworld get much more attention.
 
Top