[karl262]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Remember also that Frigates are completely multi-role. They have multiple levels of sensors as well with air, surface and sub surface. They have long range standoff weapons as well as short range weapons and anti-air defense. Unless we're going to retro-grade out submarines to fire long range cruise missiles they have one weapons system that can only really range in the thousands of yards short band. Also a sub's primary sensor package is sonar which does nothing to protect air space off the coast.


Submarines also don't have pursuit speed, which a surface vessel does have





Navy's are built to be completely multi-role. Absolutely they are there to protect a nations territorial waters, but they can also assist in protecting air space. As well they are there for search and rescue, interdiction in terms of smuggling. Three of the roles cannot really be carried out by a submarine.



A submarine does two things really well. Ambush and sink, and gather intelligence. The third thing that it can do well is something that our subs aren't really designed to do which is shallow water insertion of special forces.


A submarine is designed to be part of an overall naval strategy, not be the only part of your naval strategy.


Also in terms of the nuclear navy concept that Canada looked at under Brian Mulroney.


1) The costs would have been relatively cheap at the time as the US navy was moving on to their flight II LA Class boats iirc, so they would have probably sold us a few of the first flights for cheap instead of doing an expensive refurbishment that included cutting the hull to insert a weapons plug for vertical launch and the significant redesign of its command and control spaces and the upgrading of its sensor and computerization suite.


2) Peace broke out, the Soviet Union fell apart and they couldn't afford to run their navy and their large submarine forces rotted at the pier. Canada lost its desire to modernize their navy.


3) Transitioning from a diesel electric submarine fleet to a nuclear navy would have been nearly impossible. Beyond the concept of retraining your entire submarine force and establishing a training regime and school for engineers. The environmentalist movement probably would have gone nuts. Plus we would have had to completely rebuild our submarine facilities and dry docks as refitting a nuclear submarine is far different then a diesel electric boat.





A navy commander would prefer a submarine with modern communications and data links in combination to a frigate. Usually most American battle groups will contain 2 to 3 subs as their reconnaissance element to scout ahead to search for enemy subs, ships and mine fields.



Currently Canada really doesn't have the ability to form their own effective battlegroups as we retired our command destroyers that you form a group around. But I'm sure if you would have asked that group commander what he would want it would be



Destroyer for offensive punch.
Frigates for air defense and submarine defense
Submarine for advanced scouting and anti ship/anti-sub capabilities.
Oh and either a few helicopters with great sensor suites or access to land based air craft for anti-submarine or anti ship capabilities.


Oh one more add on.


Submarines aren't designed to work in groups with each other because frankly radios or their sound based phones radiate noise. Submarines are designed to work as individual units.


Even with a submarine if they're scouting and they spot a ship and they have to stick up an antennae to communicate up the chain of command they hate that because again they're radiating and most navy ships have the ability to quickly triangulate the signal and attack it.


Even if a submarine uses something like a message buoy, they're designed not to send a signal until the sub is a good distance away.

All very good points.

Do you think Canada should assert arctic sovereignty, and if so, how?