SSBN operations are deliberately compartmentalized. Their patrol areas, routes and schedules are among the most closely guarded national secrets, including from allies.
Exactly. SSBN operations are compartmentalized. Which means SSBN deployments will be missing from any NATO underwater management.
The same, to a lessor extent, is true for SSNs, which may have clandestine missions that are nationally not considered approprite to share will all of NATO nations. Such submarine deployment information, other than participations in NATO exercise, is unlikely to be present in any NATO underwater management.
I am all for NATO co-ordination to avoid inappropriate and unintentional interaction between NATO country submarines. But IMHO you massively overstated what is in place - I noted such above, and to which, I think you may agree, re: SSNs and SSBNs.
What transpired 2 decades ago with SSBNs colliding is in part due to NATO underwater management not extending to include such submarines. I seriously doubt that NATO underwater management fidelity has changed in that regard today.
It is reasonable to assume that Britain and France reviewed the incident and refined their procedures.
Exactly - and its far more likely that billateral agreements on shared submarine deployment information is in place than relying on NATO underwater management.
Classification in regards to further detail on this likely precludes more in depth discussion and debate, regardless as to which view / persective one may have on the matter.
But getting back to the topic,
re Type-212CDs for Canada, this IMHO will have strategic implications, not only in regard to NATO underwater management, but even more so in regards to Canada(RCN)-US(USN) and Canada(RCN)-UK (RN) bilateral agreements in regards to the Arctic and submarines.
knowledge of oceanography, but I'm guessing they were in the same spot because it was the best layer to hide from other subs...
