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.

 

[Maxman1]

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.

Like this?

 

[Underway]

Like this?

Honestly, might be better than what Europe has right now. Sometimes old tech is best tech. Looks like we could make 500 of those a week. One use only. Lmao

Love the name Brono-saurus. Classic

 

[calculus]

More news from Korea:

Breaking News: South Korea Challenges U.S. Influence with Bold $20–$24 Billion Submarine Offer to Canada

Breaking News: South Korea Challenges U.S. Influence with Bold $20–$24 Billion Submarine Offer to Canada

www.armyrecognition.com

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/south-korea-canada-submarines-artillery-defence-1.7523180

 

[Colin Parkinson]

This is timely as getting 4 new subs by 2035 will help take the strain off of our decaying CFP's and as the RCD start coming on line, along with the P8's and two JSS, we will have a abilty to make a significant difference at sea.

 

[Czech_pivo]

This is timely as getting 4 new subs by 2035 will help take the strain off of our decaying CFP's and as the RCD start coming on line, along with the P8's and two JSS, we will have a abilty to make a significant difference at sea.

Would it not be a 'push' at best?
I'd assume that all the Kingston's will be 'gone by 2035, so we'd be down 12 ships, plus any potentials Halifax's that could self-retire by then as well.

 

[Stoker]

Would it not be a 'push' at best?
I'd assume that all the Kingston's will be 'gone by 2035, so we'd be down 12 ships, plus any potentials Halifax's that could self-retire by then as well.

All the Kingston's will be gone by 2030. HMCS MONCTON will be the final operational one.

 

[Underway]

Would it not be a 'push' at best?
I'd assume that all the Kingston's will be 'gone by 2035, so we'd be down 12 ships, plus any potentials Halifax's that could self-retire by then as well.

Maybe, but I wouldn't use Kingstons in that calculation. If you consider adding AOPS will more than enough compensate for Kingstons retiring.

I would expect that the submarines are going to be better and have higher availability rates.

 

[MilEME09]

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.

depends, Canada has the advantage that we are not in shooting distance of the DPRK. If South korea really wants to invest, having us as a secondary manufacturer would be extremely useful to them if a shooting war ever kicked off.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Maybe, but I wouldn't use Kingstons in that calculation. If you consider adding AOPS will more than enough compensate for Kingstons retiring.

I would expect that the submarines are going to be better and have higher availability rates.

Yes please for the love of God, better and higher availability rates.

 

[calculus]

Yes please for the love of God, better and higher availability rates.

I'm curious. How does the RCN classify availability. For example, in my line of business, we have three tiers: 1) Available (Operational, all functionality working as expected), 2) Operational with Deficiencies (Available, some functions degraded or not working), and 3) Out of Service.

Does the RCN have tiers of availability? I would assume yes, or ships would bever sail.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I'm curious. How does the RCN classify availability. For example, in my line of business, we have three tiers: 1) Available (Operational, all functionality working as expected), 2) Operational with Deficiencies (Available, some functions degraded or not working), and 3) Out of Service.

Does the RCN have tiers of availability? I would assume yes, or ships would bever sail.

I'm not going to pretend to know this but I would use Corner Brook as an example of 'low availability rate'......

 

[Stoker]

Maybe, but I wouldn't use Kingstons in that calculation. If you consider adding AOPS will more than enough compensate for Kingstons retiring.

I would expect that the submarines are going to be better and have higher availability rates.

AOPS won't be able to do everything the Kingston Class has done in the past just by numbers of available hulls. AOPS is a very different beast in maintenance availability alone. It was relatively easy to maintain and get ships out the door on operations in comparison to what it takes a AOPV to sail.