Replacing the Subs

[Spencer100]

To paraphrase Emmanuel Macron - Four makes you a vassal not an ally.

This line of reasoning really cracks me up. The thought that you can defend Canadian sovereignty by doing "just enough" not to have the Americans intervene. Guess what? If (when) push comes to shove and our "just enough" isn't enough in a real crisis then the US WILL intervene and our sovereignty will be lost. Only by being able to REALLY contribute on our own can we protect our sovereignty.

I agree with you. But as evidenced by the last 40 years most of the country does not.

But then again I think maybe I would be Ok with US suzerainty over us. Thinking......maybe not Washington DC is almost as dumb as Ottawa.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

6 new subs means we can do a lot of work with them, that we can't do with drones, UAV's and unmanned stuff. A lot of the "buying a seat at the table" comes with having unique equipment to do jobs they USN/RN can't do. Having a Canadian sub poking around Russian or Chinese coastline gathering intel, is also less of a threat than a US one, from a political standpoint. Our current sub fleet has done a lot more than they get credit for.

 

[Czech_pivo]

To paraphrase Emmanuel Macron - Four makes you a vassal not an ally.

This line of reasoning really cracks me up. The thought that you can defend Canadian sovereignty by doing "just enough" not to have the Americans intervene. Guess what? If (when) push comes to shove and our "just enough" isn't enough in a real crisis then the US WILL intervene and our sovereignty will be lost. Only by being able to REALLY contribute on our own can we protect our sovereignty.

Someone who speaks the truth.

 

[suffolkowner]

We could buy 50 subs but it wouldnt mean anything if we cant maintain them and dont have the personnel. The same goes for any platform whether its the CSC or F35 or Leo2's. We are like most countries trying to maintain a little bit of everything. Very few nations have huge numbers of subs. The UK is planning on 7 attack subs and France 6

 

[DBNSG]

We could buy 50 subs but it wouldnt mean anything if we cant maintain them and dont have the personnel. The same goes for any platform whether its the CSC or F35 or Leo2's. We are like most countries trying to maintain a little bit of everything. Very few nations have huge numbers of subs. The UK is planning on 7 attack subs and France 6

Canada could probably do just 6 or mayyybe 8.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Plus the reactors will always make more noise than electric batteries.

Until they snort. With modern radars and EOIR systems, snorting is rolling the dice.

Modern reactor/sub tech has really cut down on pump noise sources.

I’d take the power of the nuc.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I don't think it's a question of whether the Victorias are capable platforms or not. It's just a question of numbers. With a total fleet size of four or even six boats how much of our coastline could you protect in case of a conflict with China and/or Russia? What realistic expeditionary offensive capability would you have?

What is the opportunity cost of maintaining a micro fleet of submarines vs other capabilities that may provide you equal or greater overall effect? For example how many P-8's could you purchase and man for the cost of purchasing and maintaining 4-6 SSKs? Certainly a single SSK is a more potent asset than a single P-8, but if a single A26 AIP submarine costs around $816 million USD* and a P-8 cost around $150 million*, then would a fleet of 6 x A26 subs ($5 billion USD) be more useful than 33 x P-8's for Canada?

*unit costs from Wikipedia. As with any military platform costing both numbers should be considered guestimates.

It’s actually both.

I’ve flown on quite a few diesel and nucs, Allied and otherwise. Our boat was the easiest one to gain and maintain contact on.

New boats are the ticket and in greater numbers.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

6 new subs means we can do a lot of work with them, that we can't do with drones, UAV's and unmanned stuff. A lot of the "buying a seat at the table" comes with having unique equipment to do jobs they USN/RN can't do. Having a Canadian sub poking around Russian or Chinese coastline gathering intel, is also less of a threat than a US one, from a political standpoint. Our current sub fleet has done a lot more than they get credit for.

The USN and RN are the ones with op experience in the blue/brown waters you’re talking about. They’ve been doing it for decades.

The Russians or Chinese don’t give less of a fuck if a cdn flagged target is off their coast; it will just be a target either way.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

We could buy 50 subs but it wouldnt mean anything if we cant maintain them and dont have the personnel. The same goes for any platform whether its the CSC or F35 or Leo2's. We are like most countries trying to maintain a little bit of everything. Very few nations have huge numbers of subs. The UK is planning on 7 attack subs and France 6

Personally I think the Astute class is a very capable boat. It’s a shame there won’t be more of them.

 

[GR66]

It’s actually both.

I’ve flown on quite a few diesel and nucs, Allied and otherwise. Our boat was the easiest one to gain and maintain contact on.

New boats are the ticket and in greater numbers.

Believe me, I'm not in any way anti-sub. Greater numbers and expeditionary capability for me are the keys. Twelve nuc boats would definitely give Canada a real expeditionary offensive capability and be a deterrent to enemy operations as well.

Conventional subs to me would be a defensive capability against SSGNs off our coasts but not suited for distant expeditionary ops. If we're primarily using them to cover the approaches to our coasts however I still think that a combination of more MPAs and UUVs/USVs with towed arrays would give us greater coverage considering the limited number of subs we could afford (and man).

In the past I've suggested that Canada could purchase US nuclear subs but home port them in the US submarine bases where they already have the support infrastructure. However the optics wouldn't fly politically in Canada and frankly with AUKUS seeing Australia getting US Virginia-Class boats I don't think there is any capacity in the US to build additional boats for Canada.

 

[suffolkowner]

We could look to joint crew with Australia but I think we would bleed more to AUS

 

[Maxman1]

Personally I think the Astute class is a very capable boat. It’s a shame there won’t be more of them.

What if there was a diesel version of the Astute?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

What if there was a diesel version of the Astute?

There isn’t. There won’t be.

 

[Maxman1]

There isn’t. There won’t be.

Not with that attitude.

 

[dimsum]

Not with that attitude.

Ah yes, the "pay me enough money and I'll completely re-engineer the powerplant, etc" method

The Aussies nearly fell for that.

 

[FSTO]

An interesting article from the Hub

Richard Shimooka: A significant boost to security: Inside Canada’s plans to replace its submarines

thehub.ca

 

[KevinB]

An interesting article from the Hub

Richard Shimooka: A significant boost to security: Inside Canada’s plans to replace its submarines

thehub.ca

Interesting yes, but the largest issue for most arguments seems to be arctic patrol, and deterring China and Russia
Something that none of the D/E or AIP systems can really offer.

To me personally, albeit not being a Naval guy, the SSN is the only option that meets Canada’s stated requirements. SSN’s being most likely off the books for Canada due to the cost, and the issues with security, and concerns about the N word.

Given that, it would make sense to me to have a robust Surface Fleet, supported by (and supporting) Remotely Piloted Submersible Systems, and covered by P-8 and RPAS systems, as well as GeoSpacial assets.

That also requires at least 1 Heavy All Season Ice Breaker able to deal with thick multi year ice, and ice capable RPSS tenders/support ships.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Interesting yes, but the largest issue for most arguments seems to be arctic patrol, and deterring China and Russia
Something that none of the D/E or AIP systems can really offer.

To me personally, albeit not being a Naval guy, the SSN is the only option that meets Canada’s stated requirements. SSN’s being most likely off the books for Canada due to the cost, and the issues with security, and concerns about the N word.

Given that, it would make sense to me to have a robust Surface Fleet, supported by (and supporting) Remotely Piloted Submersible Systems, and covered by P-8 and RPAS systems, as well as GeoSpacial assets.

That also requires at least 1 Heavy All Season Ice Breaker able to deal with thick multi year ice, and ice capable RPSS tenders/support ships.

Look- nuclear powered vessels are a non-starter in Canada.

Submarines are “barely” a starter in Canada.

Given those contraints, I would look around for a conventional submarine that is long range, AIP and can utilize UUVs. Sure, you are not going to get much of an under ice capability, but you can sure patrol the fringes and act as a positional block force.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Look- nuclear powered vessels are a non-starter in Canada.

Submarines are “barely” a starter in Canada.

Given those contraints, I would look around for a conventional submarine that is long range, AIP and can utilize UUVs. Sure, you are not going to get much of an under ice capability, but you can sure patrol the fringes and act as a positional block force.

The real problem for a sub for Canada is the mounting of all those solar panels to keep the batteries topped up, as dinosaur fueled engines will be illegal any minute now.

 

[KevinB]

Look- nuclear powered vessels are a non-starter in Canada.

Submarines are “barely” a starter in Canada.

Given those contraints, I would look around for a conventional submarine that is long range, AIP and can utilize UUVs. Sure, you are not going to get much of an under ice capability, but you can sure patrol the fringes and act as a positional block force.

Which I would argue doesn’t really do much, for 6 months of the year.
The white is March 2022 Ice Pack, and the pink line is the 30 year median.