Replacing the Subs

[GR66]

or become the missile producer for other people. Also I suspect a missile production facility, can be easily adapted to make more than one type of missile. Have the facility make the missiles/rockets for our subs, RCD's and any MRLS we acquire. making sure we don't use any ITAR tech either.

Something similar to the Naval Strike Missile...launched from ships and land-based systems plus the air-launched Joint Strike Missile is a variant of the NSM as well.

Also I've suggested previously that in addition to our own domestic requirements and any foreign sales we are able to get we could build up a NATO war stock for distribution to our allies in case of war and count it toward our 3% GDP defence spending target.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Wouldn't that be double counting? Because I am sure the other NATO nations with "dibs" on those missiles in stock would count them towards their own 3%.

 

[KevinB]

Wouldn't that be double counting? Because I am sure the other NATO nations with "dibs" on those missiles in stock would count them towards their own 3%.

100%

Either you buy it, or you don’t. Selling something you make to other countries isn’t defense spending it’s GDP…

 

[Rainbow1910]

or become the missile producer for other people. Also I suspect a missile production facility, can be easily adapted to make more than one type of missile. Have the facility make the missiles/rockets for our subs, RCD's and any MRLS we acquire. making sure we don't use any ITAR tech either.

Given the South Korean KSS-III seems the likely winner of the CPSP, I could very much see them setting up a munitions factory within Canada to produce their missiles. It would be a valuable enterprise for Canada and South Korea, with the former looking to bring production within its borders and with the latter looking to offshore production away from their dangerous neighbors. As the Koreans become larger and larger exporters, Canada could benefit as a supplier for Korean systems.

 

[Underway]

Some numbers when you're talking missiles here... KSS III can have either 6 VLS or 10 VLS depending on the block we get.

So we're looking at max 120 missiles as @Oldgateboatdriver pointed out because you're going to buy a full load for 6-8 subs and then have reloads (as 4-6 won't be sailing at a given time).

However cruise missiles are smaller than ballistic missiles, and a VLS may be able to be multipacked (or not and just shoot one).

If you wanted to manufacture in Canada you would do it low rate production. 10-20 missiles per year, to match the submarines arrival to the fleet, starting a year or two before the first sub is due. I think it more likely that Canada joins a Sea Sparrow style conglomerate with Korea and we work with them to develop the missiles we need. Providing data, tech knowledge, probably resources and supply chain additions to their program.

Of course if Canada wants to get into the land launched ballistic missile game (not on anyone's bingo card) to defend Latvia/Europe/Japan/Korea then the same missile easily is converted back for a vehicle launch.

Selling something you make to other countries isn’t defense spending it’s GDP

Completely agree.

 

[GR66]

Wouldn't that be double counting? Because I am sure the other NATO nations with "dibs" on those missiles in stock would count them towards their own 3%.

Why would it be double counting? We would be buying extra munitions beyond our own requirements with our own money and stockpiling it for NATO in secure locations far from the front lines. If war comes, the NATO council authorizes release of war stocks and the munitions are delivered from the stockpiles to NATO members as required, not sold. In effect we would be taking the pressure off the US to be the arsenal of NATO.

 

[KevinB]

Why would it be double counting? We would be buying extra munitions beyond our own requirements with our own money and stockpiling it for NATO in secure locations far from the front lines. If war comes, the NATO council authorizes release of war stocks and the munitions are delivered from the stockpiles to NATO members as required, not sold. In effect we would be taking the pressure off the US to be the arsenal of NATO.

Canada doesn’t even buy enough munitions (or have proper storage for the pittance) for its own needs.

The idea of making more and having ‘extra’ is going to be a hard sell.

 

[GR66]

Canada doesn’t even buy enough munitions (or have proper storage for the pittance) for its own needs.

The idea of making more and having ‘extra’ is going to be a hard sell.

There are a plethora of things that Canada doesn't do enough of on the defence side. All of them will be a hard sell. However, establishing a high-tech industry in Canada while at the same time providing a deep magazine of munitions for ourselves and our allies (which Ukraine has shown is vital and China would likely require an order of magnitude more) is likely an easier lift than many of the other solutions.

Of course this isn't an "easy button" solution that is done instead of the many other things that need to be done, it's just one of the things that would be a useful contribution by Canada.