Replacing the Subs

[Colin Parkinson]

That’s kind of the point.

Not a great analogy but the subs are supposed to be like SOF - you know they exist, but aren’t supposed to know what they’re doing or where.

At some point you need to release stuff about them or the voter will do to them, what our opponents cannot. Canadians need to understand the value of the subs. The RN seem much better at getting the different services and equipment out into the media.

 

[suffolkowner]

At some point you need to release stuff about them or the voter will do to them, what our opponents cannot. Canadians need to understand the value of the subs. The RN seem much better at getting the different services and equipment out into the media.

Everybody is better than the CAF at that. Often you find out about things involving the CAF from reading other nations news releases

 

[GK .Dundas]

The CF PAFO's never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
After an earthquake in New Zealand some years ago they didn't want to discuss weather or not there we would offering assistance from a frigate already deploying there for an exercise.
The same frigate that they'd been releasing one statement after another previously.
For a while it looked as if they were going to deny the existence of New Zealand....

 

[Weinie]

The CF PAFO's never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
After an earthquake in New Zealand some years ago they didn't want to discuss weather or not there we would offering assistance from a frigate already deploying there for an exercise.
The same frigate that they'd been releasing one statement after another previously.
For a while it looked as if they were going to deny the existence of New Zealand....

At the behest/orders from PMO. You underestimate how the short-pants cohort sees crisis as opportunity.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Since we haven't actually purchased any new submarines yet, now is probably the best time to ask if we SHOULD buy new submarines.

I'm certainly not going to argue against the usefulness of submarines or against the quantity being proposed (anything less than 12 realistically doesn't really give you a big enough deployable fleet to have a significant military impact). But just like nobody will argue against the usefulness of aircraft carriers you can argue whether they are right for the RCN.

My take on submarines for Canada is based on the following assumptions/opinions:

• in a war neither the Russian or Chinese surface fleets will risk approaching the North American coastline where they would come in range of US aviation assets.
• any Russian/Chinese subs that approach our coasts are likely to be longer endurance nuclear boats rather than conventional subs.
• given our plan to purchase MOTS conventional subs our boats will not be used for extended under ice operations.
• since we are only likely to have up to four boats available at any given time and with the limited underwater range/speed of conventional subs (relative to nuclear subs) we are more likely to keep our sub fleet deployed on our side of the Atlantic/Pacific in a defensive role rather then deploying to the far side of the oceans in an offensive role.

Of course none of the above is written in stone. We could face enemy conventional subs in our own backyard or we could end up forward deploying a boat or two to the Far East or Norwegian Sea but I'd argue that these are more likely to be the exceptions rather than the rule.

So if the primary role of our subs would be to counter enemy submarines on our side of the oceans and we we will likely only have two available at any given time on each coast to cover our vast maritime domain and the nuclear boats we are facing are faster, have greater endurance and can go under ice where we can't follow, then do conventional submarines give us the best bang for our buck?

I'm again going to make an assumption that nuclear subs (which would counter many of the above issues) are off the table for political, technical and economic reasons. So the question then becomes what OTHER ASW capabilities could we purchase for the same money that we'd be putting into a fleet of 12 x conventional submarines? Additional surface combatants? More MPA's? Uncrewed systems? Would a mix of these alternate systems actually provide us greater coverage than the submarine fleet?

Again, I'll fully acknowledge the unique capabilities that submarines bring to the table, but in terms of opportunity cost are the benefits of a submarine fleet greater than the sum of the other capabilities we could buy for the RCN for the same cost?

We aren't getting 12 submarines, I am skeptical the capability will be maintained at all. I don't think the Admirals believe we are getting submarines either. CRCN certainly didn't believe we should even keep the submarine fleet when they were Comd CANFLTPAC.

My guess is the pending contract sways in the wind for a few years and keeps getting pushed back. 2037 is a VERY long time away, at least 3 Governments away in fact.

 

[DBNSG]

We aren't getting 12 submarines, I am skeptical the capability will be maintained at all. I don't think the Admirals believe we are getting submarines either. CRCN certainly didn't believe we should even keep the submarine fleet when they were Comd CANFLTPAC.

My guess is the pending contract sways in the wind for a few years and keeps getting pushed back. 2037 is a VERY long time away, at least 3 Governments away in fact.

Is that 3 American or Canadian Governments away? I don't think Canada is going to have many choices moving forward. America has demonstrated that with the Ukraine crisis that they are willing to walk a tightrope between helping Ukraine to not lose while also waking up the Europeans that Defending themselves will now rest more on their own capabilities.
The RCAF's very good year I would argue came from the plans and expectations of the U.S. State department and not the pretty little heads of our PMO. Canada has always done pretty well by being priority 23-27 for the Americans but I would also argue we are about 7-10 th on the American priorities list. We are getting noticed for the wrong reasons, mainly the inexcusable refusal to Spend 2% on Defence. The 2% has become a Sesame Street easy policy talking point that is also a red hot branding iron for this spendthrift Liberal Government. NATO and the Americans now know we don't take security seriously. But we will. Kicking and screaming.

 

[Underway]

Canada has far more agency then everyone seems to think. We lose agency when we  dont spend on defence. I feel like people have the relationship backwords.

Now that doesn't mean there won't be consequences (sticks or carrots) to spending or not spending on defence. But the US can't dictate to us nor will they.

That being said NORAD improvement investments are going ahead, new fighters, AEW aircraft, radar stations, Reaper drones, P8 aircraft and other stuff that is more subtle but still important. Submarine programs is only one thing. The NORAD piece I would argue is more important and significant and the one the US deems critical.

 

[dimsum]

The CF PAFO's never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
After an earthquake in New Zealand some years ago they didn't want to discuss weather or not there we would offering assistance from a frigate already deploying there for an exercise.
The same frigate that they'd been releasing one statement after another previously.
For a while it looked as if they were going to deny the existence of New Zealand....

There’s an entire subreddit about denying the existence of Kiwiland…

https://www.reddit.com/r/MapsWithoutNZ/

 

[GR66]

We aren't getting 12 submarines, I am skeptical the capability will be maintained at all. I don't think the Admirals believe we are getting submarines either. CRCN certainly didn't believe we should even keep the submarine fleet when they were Comd CANFLTPAC.

My guess is the pending contract sways in the wind for a few years and keeps getting pushed back. 2037 is a VERY long time away, at least 3 Governments away in fact.

It certainly might not be 12 submarines as the RFI is for "up to twelve". However the date of first delivery is slated for 2035 at the latest with contract award by 2028 which will likely be in the term of the next government per the stated timelines.

To avoid any gaps in Canadian submarine capabilities, Canada anticipates a contract award by 2028, with the delivery of the first replacement submarine no later than 2035. These efforts are part of Canada’s plan to increase its defence spending ratio in relation to gross domestic product.

In terms of the numbers being procured and the number of deployed subs generated from that it looks like I was off on the 1:3 ratio. According to an interview with VAdm Topshee in the Canadian Defence Review it's actually a 1:4 ratio.

It’s been reported that the RCN is readying itself for the purchase of up to 12 new submarines at a cost of $60 billion, according to National Defence and industry sources. The Navy is pushing for the acquisition of the submarines to be included in the upcoming Defence Policy Update (DPU).

When it comes to buying new subs under the CPSP, the RCN needs “at least eight” and possibly 12, said VAdm Topshee, , during an interview with CDR in 2023. “If you want to have a single line of tasking with a submarine in the Pacific, you need four boats based in Victoria,” he explained. “You want to guarantee the availability of a submarine to do anything you need it to do in the Atlantic, so you need four boats based in Halifax. [Then] if you also want to be able to do the Arctic, you better find a place to put [another] four boats between those two places.”

So if we get 8 x boats it means we have a single submarine available in each of the Atlantic and Pacific. For an additional boat - to deploy to the Arctic or on an expeditionary mission - you need to get the full 12 x boats (certainly not guaranteed). If we only get 8 x boats and you want one to go to the Arctic or on an expeditionary mission it means stripping one of the coasts of its only deployed sub.

Watch the videos I posted. Answers all the questions.

In particular Adm(R) Norman dismisses nuke boats for arctic ocean patrols as he states correctly (paraphrased) "Our closest allies are already there, we can help them best by monitoring the approaches to the arctic"

I'm certainly not going to argue against points raised by three retired Admirals but I will make a couple of observations that I think are relevant to the discussion.

• RAdm Norman noted the current difficulty of attracting and training submariners to crew our existing fleet of four submarines - even above and beyond the more general recruiting/retention issues of the CAF. That certainly won't be any easier with triple the number of subs.
• He also noted (correctly I believe) that the main area of enemy activity in the Arctic is the Trans Polar Sea Route. The Northern Sea Route is within Russian territorial waters and as RAdm Norman noted the NWP is more of a "Goat Path" and he noted that with the melting of Arctic sea ice the NWP is actually becoming MORE blocked with floating ice due to the flow of currents. It's a very confined area where subs lose their advantage of being able to hide in the vast ocean and not where they would choose to operate.
• You'll also note that the bulk of the Trans Polar Sea Route that is the area of concern is mostly under permanent ice cover. Not an area where conventional subs would operate for any extended period of time.

• VAdm Davidson (again correctly) described submarines as having a strategic effect due to their ability to remain undetected unlike surface vessels. This as he says, has a deterrent and area denial effect on an enemy that may consider operating in an area where subs may be present. My question though is what areas would our subs be deterring the Russians/Chinese from operating where they are not already being deterred by US (and other allied) subs?
• There was a good summary of why nuclear subs are a no-go for Canada and as was noted the Americans are already covering the area under the ice pack with their subs so our role would be to help them by covering the edges of the ice pack. Sounds logical but what does that mean for a fleet of 2-3 deployed submarines? On the Pacific side both China and Russia have their submarines based well south of the Arctic and any major conflict between the West and China/Russia will see the flow of forces across the mid-to-North Pacific. Any deployment of a Canadian sub through the Bering Straight to the Arctic ice edge will be far away from the main theatre of conflict and also unable to defend our primary Pacific Coastline. Same for our Atlantic-based subs...patrolling around Baffin Bay and the outlets of the NWP (where Russian subs are unlikely to try and pass through the constrained straights when they have the much wider GIUK Gap) takes away coverage of our Atlantic coast.

Again, I 100% agree that submarines are incredibly powerful and useful platforms...that's not my argument. All I'm saying is that we should seriously look at the opportunity cost of the $60 billion that will generate 2 (or possibly 3) deployed subs. Canada has the largest coastline of any nation and 2-3 boats will only be able to cover a minuscule portion of that. Take one away for an expeditionary mission and another to patrol the Arctic and you're leaving at least one (possibly both) of our coasts without coverage.

What could that $60 billion buy in terms of surface ASW ships, MPA's, uncrewed systems, satellites, etc. each of which could be an additional sensor node covering a much greater area of our maritime domain for the same cost? I think it's a question worth asking.

 

[YZT580]

It certainly might not be 12 submarines as the RFI is for "up to twelve". However the date of first delivery is slated for 2035 at the latest with contract award by 2028 which will likely be in the term of the next government per the stated timelines.

In terms of the numbers being procured and the number of deployed subs generated from that it looks like I was off on the 1:3 ratio. According to an interview with VAdm Topshee in the Canadian Defence Review it's actually a 1:4 ratio.

So if we get 8 x boats it means we have a single submarine available in each of the Atlantic and Pacific. For an additional boat - to deploy to the Arctic or on an expeditionary mission - you need to get the full 12 x boats (certainly not guaranteed). If we only get 8 x boats and you want one to go to the Arctic or on an expeditionary mission it means stripping one of the coasts of its only deployed sub.

Again, I 100% agree that submarines are incredibly powerful and useful platforms...that's not my argument. All I'm saying is that we should seriously look at the opportunity cost of the $60 billion that will generate 2 (or possibly 3) deployed subs. Canada has the largest coastline of any nation and 2-3 boats will only be able to cover a minuscule portion of that. Take one away for an expeditionary mission and another to patrol the Arctic and you're leaving at least one (possibly both) of our coasts without coverage.

What could that $60 billion buy in terms of surface ASW ships, MPA's, uncrewed systems, satellites, etc. each of which could be an additional sensor node covering a much greater area of our maritime domain for the same cost? I think it's a question worth asking.

Surface vehicles (including stealthy ones) are much easier to find than those that are beneath the surface. We will have 5 to 8 max. war ships available. With one or two attached to NATO that leaves 3 maybe 6 if you are lucky. Now send two towards China and you have at most 2 per coast. They won't last a week by themselves so they are going to be attached to one of the Atlantic fleets leaving you exactly 0 guarding our approaches. That is where the money spent on subs becomes worthwhile. They are extremely hard to find until they choose to announce their presence and then it is too late.