Replacing the Subs

[Prairie canuck]

Sweden and the Netherlands would likely welcome partners/customers to join their development of an extended range submarine Oceanic project. It's a long shot but this may be the best opportunity to integrate a Slowpoke reactor with the Swedish Sterling power plant.

 

[GR66]

I’d argue to de-fund the Army, and strengthen the RCAF (NORAD obligations and all) and the RCN. Stand up the RCM with the remaining land forces (Royal Canadian Marines).

The RCAF is arguably the most operational part of the CAF day to day, year to year, even if you separate SAR.

Our army is small and will never operate outside a coalition whereas a single MPA can kill a major asset like a sub (SSGN, SSBN, SSN, SSK…). That just ASW not all the other missions CMMA will be doing.

While I agree with prioritizing the RCAF and RCN I think that "de-funding" the Army ignores the significant national interest (both military and political) that can be served by forces on the ground. I do think it's fair though to question what form that contribution should take.

I'd also note that while some people could try and make the argument that we don't need a full-spectrum, combat capable Army at this particular point in time, the situation could change much more rapidly than the time required to re-create a capability that you previously gave up.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Forces on the ground = RCM

 

[Kirkhill]

There are significant manning issues to be overcome if we're to get Virginia-Class subs. Not only the issue of the skills required to operate a nuclear sub, but also just sheer numbers:

4 x Victoria-Class @ 53 pers/boat = 212 pers total

6 x Virginia-Class @ 135 pers/boat = 810 pers total, or
9 x Virginia-Class @ 135 pers/boat = 1,215 pers total

Cdn Type 26 Complement

204

UK Type 26 Complement

157[13] (capacity for 208)[13]

Aus Type 26 Complement

180 personnel, with accommodation for 208

1 - complement of 157 instead of 204 = savings of 43x 15 = 645 = 645 / 135 = 4.8 VA boats.

2 - 9 CSC instead of 15 = savings of 6x 157 = 942 = 942 / 135 = 7 VA boats

We have the bodies. We just need to allocated them suitably.

Instead of 15 CSCs how about 6 VAs / SSNs and 9 CSCs?

 

[Kirkhill]

While I agree with prioritizing the RCAF and RCN I think that "de-funding" the Army ignores the significant national interest (both military and political) that can be served by forces on the ground. I do think it's fair though to question what form that contribution should take.

I'd also note that while some people could try and make the argument that we don't need a full-spectrum, combat capable Army at this particular point in time, the situation could change much more rapidly than the time required to re-create a capability that you previously gave up.

Make the Militia like the CSE - give it its own Vote 1 budget.

 

[Maxman1]

And the Arrow was secretly stopped by the US too. Urgh!

They didn't block anything. We cancelled ourselves for cost and the end of the cold war. And the Arrow was secretly stopped by the US too. Urgh!

Plus 40 years later they would absolutely want us to have new subs it helps them. Plus $ for their industry too.

They did block it. Under the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement allows them to block the transfer of nuclear submarine reactors by the UK to any other country, and another agreement with Canada allows them to block any other country from transferring nuclear submarines to us.

Military History

Military History

www.journal.forces.gc.ca

A third batch of Halifax frigates was cancelled to pay for the submarines, and was never reinstated, leaving us with 12 instead of 18 frigates.

 

[Spencer100]

They did block it. Under the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement allows them to block the transfer of nuclear submarine reactors by the UK to any other country, and another agreement with Canada allows them to block any other country from transferring nuclear submarines to us.

Military History

Military History

www.journal.forces.gc.ca

A third batch of Halifax frigates was cancelled to pay for the submarines, and was never reinstated, leaving us with 12 instead of 18 frigates.

The US did not block it. They did cancel the third block of frigates to pay for the Canada class. Years later they canceled it because the cold war was over. Canadians wanted the peace dividend. And there was a lot of complaining about nuclear subs. The US would have loved for Canada have nuclear subs. It make zero sense that they would not want that. Anything else is just anti US fairy tales. I hate that Canadian anti US BS. And they made Deif cancel the Arrow too because....reasons!

 

[IKnowNothing]

The US did not block it. They did cancel the third block of frigates to pay for the Canada class. Years later they canceled it because the cold war was over. Canadians wanted the peace dividend. And there was a lot of complaining about nuclear subs. The US would have loved for Canada have nuclear subs. It make zero sense that they would not want that. Anything else is just anti US fairy tales. I hate that Canadian anti US BS. And they made Deif cancel the Arrow too because....reareasons

The Pentagon did initially push back and wave the treaty flag to initially block it in 87, Reagan was brought around in 88 through lobbying by Thatcher, as well as (likely) back room softening of our arctic sovereignty intent.

The US would have loved for Canada to have American nuclear subs, working closely to support American interests. They did not like the idea of us having UK subs independent of US influence, with the intent of working against US interests (NW Passage).

But that barrier was overcome and yes the project died at the hands of Canadian apathy

 

[Underway]

For Canada, between the infrastructure needed for nuclear subs and public and foreign opposition, nuclear is more or less a non-starter.

Based on what the CDS told a fireside I was in this week that's pretty accurate. New subs will have to be one of the myrad conventional ones out there.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Cdn Type 26 Complement

204

UK Type 26 Complement

157[13] (capacity for 208)[13]

Aus Type 26 Complement

180 personnel, with accommodation for 208

1 - complement of 157 instead of 204 = savings of 43x 15 = 645 = 645 / 135 = 4.8 VA boats.

2 - 9 CSC instead of 15 = savings of 6x 157 = 942 = 942 / 135 = 7 VA boats

We have the bodies. We just need to allocated them suitably.

Instead of 15 CSCs how about 6 VAs / SSNs and 9 CSCs?

I argue we keep the 15 CSC and move the 6 AOPS over the CCG and the crews are fitted into the CSC and new Subs.

 

[OldSolduer]

Canada will never have nuclear powered warships, surface or sub surface. Anti nuke activitists within the government and external influences will see to that.

 

[YZT580]

While I agree with prioritizing the RCAF and RCN I think that "de-funding" the Army ignores the significant national interest (both military and political) that can be served by forces on the ground. I do think it's fair though to question what form that contribution should take.

I'd also note that while some people could try and make the argument that we don't need a full-spectrum, combat capable Army at this particular point in time, the situation could change much more rapidly than the time required to re-create a capability that you previously gave up.

besides, if the army was gone there wouldn't be anyone to shovel the streets of Toronto, assist during hurricanes and floods or help with forest fires.

 

[YZT580]

Canada will never have nuclear powered warships, surface or sub surface. Anti nuke activitists within the government and external influences will see to that.

and sadly, the Chinese

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Canada will never have nuclear powered warships, surface or sub surface. Anti nuke activitists within the government and external influences will see to that.

Plus cost: its been estimated that over the next 30+ years the Australian Nuc-submarine plan will cost between $268bn to $368bn! There is no way any Canadian government could justify that.

 

[Maxman1]

The US would have loved for Canada have nuclear subs.

No, they wouldn't. Because if we had nuclear subs, they wouldn't have free reign in the Arctic. They would have to inform us any time they sailed in Arctic waters. If you were not aware, our Arctic sovereignty is disputed by the United States, and nuclear subs would go a long way to asserting that sovereignty, which was the whole idea behind the subs. As John McGee put it: “The meaning for Canadians [was] simple. Either we take on a reasonable share of patrolling the Arctic or we shall be deemed, in terms of realpolitik, to have ceded sovereignty to the Americans.”

 

[Eye In The Sky]

If anyone thinks Canada doesn’t know if/when Allied subs are in our waters, they are wrong.

Scenario; allied sub is unannounced and inside Canadian waters. RCN or RCAF asset is on Ex or doing a patrol or whatever in the same water space. Gains contact. We drop Sonos during training and they are the same types we use on operations. If something is in range, it’s going to show up. MH dip during training. HMC ships have sensors operating during training.

Not something anyone wants happening right?

 

[MilEME09]

I’d argue to de-fund the Army, and strengthen the RCAF (NORAD obligations and all) and the RCN. Stand up the RCM with the remaining land forces (Royal Canadian Marines).

The RCAF is arguably the most operational part of the CAF day to day, year to year, even if you separate SAR.

Our army is small and will never operate outside a coalition whereas a single MPA can kill a major asset like a sub (SSGN, SSBN, SSN, SSK…). That is just ASW not all the other missions LRP/CMMA will be doing.

how about we just be realistic with our army? we aren't 5 divisions, reduce all commands to 1 div, reserve units are companies, use the money saved to increase air force or navy PY's

 

[Maxman1]

If anyone thinks Canada doesn’t know if/when Allied subs are in our waters, they are wrong.

Is that "one of our subs will be passing through between these dates" or "USS Whatever is at position XYZ now, will move to ABC tomorrow"?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Is that "one of our subs will be passing through between these dates" or "USS Whatever is at position XYZ now, will move to ABC tomorrow"?

I hope you don’t really think I’m going to answer that.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Is that "one of our subs will be passing through between these dates" or "USS Whatever is at position XYZ now, will move to ABC tomorrow"?

We aren’t talking about how that works. We know- that is all that matters.