• 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

Correct. Speaking the the Cyclone techs apparently we have excellent availability rates on our birds in comparison to all other helo fleets. But in particular they called out the Merlins as being behind the curve.
Is it the aircraft or do they suffer from parts and maintainer shortages? We already fly a similar type in the Cormorant, so we could do a inhouse comparison.
 
As part of the Comorant upgrade program we are going to be using our spares to keep initial costs down
 
From what I recall from open-source (GAO) reports, the USN Seahawks don't exactly have stellar availability rates either.

None of the US military rotary wing fleets, of any service, do.

Choosing between them is like choosing the least-worst option. And unlike the P-8, where a vast majority of our allies run the same platform, our allies are all over the map with maritime helicopter fleets.

Is this a case where reality intrudes?

We may want 90% availability rates but if Best Available Technology can only supply 30% availability, and the capability is an essential capability, then so be it. You need three units to guarantee one.

That is the cost of doing business.
 
From what I recall from open-source (GAO) reports, the USN Seahawks don't exactly have stellar availability rates either.

None of the US military rotary wing fleets, of any service, do.

Choosing between them is like choosing the least-worst option. And unlike the P-8, where a vast majority of our allies run the same platform, our allies are all over the map with maritime helicopter fleets.
I actually posted 2022 US Aviation availability rates on a thread somewhere here.
The MH-60R’s have a 86%+ rate.
The older SH-60’s have mostly been replaced now, and MH-60G’s are being replaced.

Worst rate of availability is the CV/MV-22 Osprey IMG_1456.jpegIMG_1457.jpeg


CBO’s rating is IMHO a little flawed as it counts availability as at a unit and mission ready.
But there is a 2001-2019 set of data based on that here.

Which hurts fleets that are doing upgrades etc as airframes being upgraded are taken against the fleet availability rate.
 
Yet another article saying the subs needed are ones that are Arctic capable.

Canada urged to buy new submarines capable of operating in the Arctic​


“Canada urgently needs to enhance its ability to detect underwater threats,” the Senate report said. It also called for Ottawa to acquire underwater sensing technology.
Canada’s existing four submarines are refurbished models originally built by Britain in the 1980s.
Daniel Le Bouthillier, head of media relations at the Department of National Defence, said only one of Canada’s submarines is operational right now, meaning able to go on operations or exercises.
The Senate committee’s work builds on earlier analysis of Canada’s defence shortcomings in the Arctic, including a 2022 report by the Auditor-General that found Ottawa lacks a complete picture of who is entering or traversing Arctic waters and warned of significant gaps in this country’s ability to detect foreign or domestic ships in the Arctic. This means Canada can’t stay on top of threats to national security, illegal fishing or pollution from ships entering the region.
“Look at the number of icebreakers that are being built by the Chinese, by Russia, and even the fact that the Americans operate up there, with their nuclear powered submarines, and Canada has no year-round surveillance and defence capabilities against adversary submarines in the Arctic,” he said.

 
Then there's this article - which is less flattering.

Northern leaders are deeply worried by threats to Canada's sovereignty​

What happens if a cruise ship runs aground in Canada’s Arctic waters?

There’s only one answer, says University of Calgary professor David Bercuson, a leading expert on security and military history.

“We dial 1-800-IVAN.”

Yes, call Russia. Only the Russians have the necessary ships and equipment to do that job, Bercuson says.

The three territorial premiers who met in Whistler on Tuesday were all worried about sovereignty and security. They feel exposed and defenceless. Threats could come from the Russians and, increasingly, the Chinese.
Yukon Premier Ranj Pillai recalled that fighter jets shot down an unidentified object over his territory on Feb. 11, during the security frenzy that followed the Americans destroying a Chinese balloon.

He happened to be in Ottawa and at first wasn’t taken seriously. “They thought our imagination was getting the best of us,” he said. Two days later, fighter jets roared north to shoot down the object.

“The conversation has changed a lot,” Pillai said. “Our neighbours and our allies who are part of NATO in the circumpolar north know it’s important.”
Canada lacks basic equipment. Our four submarines run on diesel and can’t work under ice, a necessity in the Arctic, which still freezes in winter.
The Chinese worry Bercuson most. They now claim status as a sub-Arctic country. He fears that tactics they employ in the South China Sea could simply shift northward.

Canada claims sovereignty of the archipelago islands, the waters around them and an adjacent economic zone, with no means to convince other countries it’s anything but words.

 
1688061061733.png

Those are the exploitable options available to the Chinese who are entitled to access them through the right of innocent passage. So nuclear subs are probably off the table but their Fisherman's Militia is certainly free to access the area.
 

Attachments

  • 1688061089068.png
    1688061089068.png
    57.4 KB · Views: 7
Then there's this article - which is less flattering.

Northern leaders are deeply worried by threats to Canada's sovereignty​

What happens if a cruise ship runs aground in Canada’s Arctic waters?

There’s only one answer, says University of Calgary professor David Bercuson, a leading expert on security and military history.

“We dial 1-800-IVAN.”

Yes, call Russia. Only the Russians have the necessary ships and equipment to do that job, Bercuson says.

The three territorial premiers who met in Whistler on Tuesday were all worried about sovereignty and security. They feel exposed and defenceless. Threats could come from the Russians and, increasingly, the Chinese.
Yukon Premier Ranj Pillai recalled that fighter jets shot down an unidentified object over his territory on Feb. 11, during the security frenzy that followed the Americans destroying a Chinese balloon.

He happened to be in Ottawa and at first wasn’t taken seriously. “They thought our imagination was getting the best of us,” he said. Two days later, fighter jets roared north to shoot down the object.

“The conversation has changed a lot,” Pillai said. “Our neighbours and our allies who are part of NATO in the circumpolar north know it’s important.”
Canada lacks basic equipment. Our four submarines run on diesel and can’t work under ice, a necessity in the Arctic, which still freezes in winter.
The Chinese worry Bercuson most. They now claim status as a sub-Arctic country. He fears that tactics they employ in the South China Sea could simply shift northward.

Canada claims sovereignty of the archipelago islands, the waters around them and an adjacent economic zone, with no means to convince other countries it’s anything but words.

In WWI, the BC Premier bought subs, so there are options......
 
In WWI, the BC Premier bought subs, so there are options......
All Hail BC the first Canadian Nuclear Provincial Power… ;)

View attachment 78509

Those are the exploitable options available to the Chinese who are entitled to access them through the right of innocent passage. So nuclear subs are probably off the table but their Fisherman's Militia is certainly free to access the area.
Because everyone with a Nuclear Sub cares right?
 
Concerns about Canada's northern sovereignty has been on-going since 1953 when the federal gov't moved inuit families from northern Québec to Ellesmere Island and Cornwallis Island.

As I can recall, staffs at CANADA COMMAND and CANOSCOM wrote about military options to enhance Canadian prescence in the arctic. All options were noted for two major common challenges: (1) significant fiscal expenditures were required for personnel, installations, equipment to support any of the options; and (2) enormous geographical area for surveillance.

Questions:
What constitutes as sovereignty and how is it to be performed?
Permanent presence (civilian, police, military?) on the ground?
Temporary presence - summer only?
Since this a domestic issue should it not be a Canadian Coast Guard and RCMP problem?
Can't surveillance be done just by satellites and any infringement by another nation be brought up through the political system? Does the Coast Guard, CAF, RCMP, Canadian Rangers need to be on the ground to detain the trespasser?
How will the Coast Guard, CAF, RCMP, Canadian Ranger be trained and equipped to handle potential threats?
What about Command, Control, Communications (C3)? CJOC, NORAD, RCMP, Coast Guard
For any air incursion, can the USAF interdict the flight if the RCAF cannot send up aircraft?
Should be Canadian Coast Guard operate like the US Coast Guard?
What happened to the Arctic base/port?
Can the F35 operate in the arctic?
Should the RCN have and operate heavy ice breakers in the arctic?
Should the RCAF operate more surveillance flights in the arctic?
Should the RCAF/CA have permanent bases in the arctic? Where? How big?
Should be RCN be equipped with SSNs?

My point is that there are lots of questions and lack of federal political direction and will because of $$$$$$$.
 
Given the current information that I've seen/heard the new defence policy has submarines in it.

They will be MOTS. There are 6 submarine building programs that are underway with allies right now. Only three of them have production lines in operation. Korea, Japan, Spain. I would suggest looking at those programs to see what's on offer. I expect the RCN will have new submarines before we have the CSC in the water.

For the arctic, we only need submarines at the choke points on entry to and exit of the NWP during relatively ice free times. Nuke boats cannot transit the NWP in winter as the ice often goes all the way to the bottom (scraping it). That's hyper dangerous. Nuke boats go deep water arctic ocean for that reason. We don't need to be there.
 
Given the current information that I've seen/heard the new defence policy has submarines in it.

They will be MOTS. There are 6 submarine building programs that are underway with allies right now. Only three of them have production lines in operation. Korea, Japan, Spain. I would suggest looking at those programs to see what's on offer. I expect the RCN will have new submarines before we have the CSC in the water.

For the arctic, we only need submarines at the choke points on entry to and exit of the NWP during relatively ice free times. Nuke boats cannot transit the NWP in winter as the ice often goes all the way to the bottom (scraping it). That's hyper dangerous. Nuke boats go deep water arctic ocean for that reason. We don't need to be there.
That is a super good point. Not being a navy guy but a fan of naval stuff I can understand that.
 
Concerns about Canada's northern sovereignty has been on-going since 1953 when the federal gov't moved inuit families from northern Québec to Ellesmere Island and Cornwallis Island.

As I can recall, staffs at CANADA COMMAND and CANOSCOM wrote about military options to enhance Canadian prescence in the arctic. All options were noted for two major common challenges: (1) significant fiscal expenditures were required for personnel, installations, equipment to support any of the options; and (2) enormous geographical area for surveillance.

Questions:
What constitutes as sovereignty and how is it to be performed?
Permanent presence (civilian, police, military?) on the ground?
Temporary presence - summer only?
Since this a domestic issue should it not be a Canadian Coast Guard and RCMP problem?
Can't surveillance be done just by satellites and any infringement by another nation be brought up through the political system? Does the Coast Guard, CAF, RCMP, Canadian Rangers need to be on the ground to detain the trespasser?
How will the Coast Guard, CAF, RCMP, Canadian Ranger be trained and equipped to handle potential threats?
What about Command, Control, Communications (C3)? CJOC, NORAD, RCMP, Coast Guard
For any air incursion, can the USAF interdict the flight if the RCAF cannot send up aircraft?
Should be Canadian Coast Guard operate like the US Coast Guard?
What happened to the Arctic base/port?
Can the F35 operate in the arctic?
Should the RCN have and operate heavy ice breakers in the arctic?
Should the RCAF operate more surveillance flights in the arctic?
Should the RCAF/CA have permanent bases in the arctic? Where? How big?
Should be RCN be equipped with SSNs?

My point is that there are lots of questions and lack of federal political direction and will because of $$$$$$$.
IT isn't the dollars, it is the will do do something. The people who control the liberal party make lots of money from the status quo. The orders from on high are to obfuscate, delay, cover-up and if all else fails, to lie but don't do anything to change the way things are now
 
Back
Top