Canadian Military News

[Byrns]

Who needs F35s when we can have new submarines!

Make it happen Harper.

One of the subs, HMCS Chicoutimi, has been in active service of the Royal Canadian Navy exactly two days in the 13 years since it was purchased from the Brits.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/10/28/f...ar-submarines/

[burn_this_city]

The Liberals were terrific at managing military purchases.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Buy new ones and make 'em in Canada! I just hate the idea of buying another countries old, obsolete equipment. I just don't see the value. Our current subs are proof positive of that.

With the recent announcement of the construction of new surface ships, I don't see it in the budget anytime soon.

[afc wimbledon]

What the hell do we need any submarines for, let alone Nukes?

[Byrns]

Arctic sovereignty. To keep the Russian's + whoever else from just driving on through when global warming makes it more feasible.

A nuclear powered submarine has a LOT more advantages in that role than a 20 year old diesel lemon.

[LChoy]

Artic sovereignty is a big deal to the Conservative governement, and one that I agree with. Right now, any nation with a submarine can sail through or pop up in Canadian territorial waters up North, and we can't do anything about it. In International Law, if we don't use it or defend it, we'll lose our claim to the Northern waterways

[CaptainCrunch]

When Canada purchased the British Upholders and renamed them the Victoria class, I was fairly excited. the Upholders were advanced diesel electric subs with a sensor equivalent to the LA class, advanced fire control and very good quieting. The British took their lessons in Nuclear sub design and applied it to a Diesel platform.

They were a generational leap up from the Oberon class subs.

But there were lots of failures in that purchase and it would be too simple to blame it on the British, we didn't do a proper inspection and handover and we placed inexperienced crews on board, and the Submarine service is considered to be the most dangerous military duty out there, so of course tragedy struck, and Canada has had a lot of trouble with refitting these subs and adding them to the fleet.

I'm a little bit surprised at this announcement to be very honest, but we'll jump to that later.

Someone asked why we need subs?

We are a nation surrounded by three massive coastlines and vast water boundries and due to budget we have a small Navy that can't cover those coasts effectively. Add to that that we have little in the way of Arctic combat capability.

Submarines do a few things extremely well, and relatively inexpensively

1) They are the ultimate sensor platform. they can literally hear whales humping in Hawaii in the right water conditions. Because of that they can cover vast coast lines with few assets, in other words they can be a cheaper alternative.

2) There is a fear factor with Submarines. Your average surface Naval commander will entirely change his tactics even if he hears rumours of a sub in his area of operation. The American's will often lie about the deployment of their Submarines to literally control Ocean grids.

3) A Nuclear Submarine is Arctic capable, a Diesel Electic is not as capable due to the snorkling requirements. Even an air independant sub cannot compete with a nuclear submarine. With 3 subs the Canadian Navy has an effective deterrant and spy capability across three coast lines.

4) If we add Nuclear Subs it will bring us more in line with NATO requirements. We really can't deploy our Victoria subs over seas, even if we wanted to.

But with every purchase there are problems

1) There is a vast difference between the Diesel Sub community and the Nuclear sub community. First and foremost, Nuclear subs are designed to be at sea forever. Average deployments are 90 days and more, you would literally have to look at every crew member in our navy, and change their training and recruiting habits.

2) All submariners have to know every inch of their sub, every system, and be able to perform duties in every space, thats how you earn your dolphin. If we went to a nuc navy, every member of the community would have to be retrained, that could literally take years
3) Resupply, replenishment and refitting is completely different every sub base would have to be refitted
4) There's obviously the question of how a nuc would fit into Canada's signature in the non proliferation treaty
5) Environmental groups would literally have a cow.

In terms of availability, there are really only two choices, the American's are looking at retiring members of the 688i fleet, however by the time that purchase happened the boats would be fairly old and require a refit.

The British are looking at the replacement of their Trafalger class boats with Astute class boats, but the same scenario applies.

I would make the assumption that we could get the boats for a song.

I don't know, thinking about and doing something with Military procurement are really two vastly seperate things.

[SebC]

Government is denying any interest in nuclear subs.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2217398/

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Byrns

Arctic sovereignty. To keep the Russian's + whoever else from just driving on through when global warming makes it more feasible.

A nuclear powered submarine has a LOT more advantages in that role than a 20 year old diesel lemon.

Especially one that doesn't work.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by SebC

Government is denying any interest in nuclear subs.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2217398/

Of course they will deny it.

They'll make sure we get the jets first. Then the subs.

[Flash Walken]

I'm tired of Canada taking this roundabout way to military procurement.

The day Canada takes an active role in it's own defense industry is the day we'll finally get quality for our dollars and not rinky dink essentially useless shells of 40 year old equipment.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Azure

Especially one that doesn't work.

Hence the lemon comment.

[nik-]

This thread should be stickied.

[afc wimbledon]

To be frank I still think it makes more sense, bearing Canadas extremely limited military budget, to buy surface ships to visibly defend our coastline, I don't see subs as being half as useful nor, if we are being realistic, are we in any position to defend the arctic, we completely rely on the US for better or worse.

[Envitro]

The more we invest in our own defense the better off we'll be.

Bring on the new jets, subs, S&R helicopters, and anything else our boys (& girls) need to get the job done

[drhu22]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

What the hell do we need any submarines for, let alone Nukes?

A nuclear submarine is one that is propelled by nuclear energy.
Not one with nukes necessarily.
Thank you for your time.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

To be frank I still think it makes more sense, bearing Canadas extremely limited military budget, to buy surface ships to visibly defend our coastline, I don't see subs as being half as useful nor, if we are being realistic, are we in any position to defend the arctic, we completely rely on the US for better or worse.

When it comes to the US, they have their own arctic interests and it doesn't coincide with ours. We either take a strong position or get taken.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

When it comes to the US, they have their own arctic interests and it doesn't coincide with ours. We either take a strong position or get taken.

I agree, I just think we have been bent over with our trousers down for about 40 years now and having a few subs we arn't prepared to use or spend money on won't change that, like it or not we are stuck relying on US policy.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by drhu22

A nuclear submarine is one that is propelled by nuclear energy.
Not one with nukes necessarily.
Thank you for your time.

A nuclear sub is also known as a nuke' I was reliably informed by a Conquerer's 2nd mate engineering H.M.N during a drunken attempt to fix a lister 3 cylinder diesel

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

To be frank I still think it makes more sense, bearing Canadas extremely limited military budget, to buy surface ships to visibly defend our coastline, I don't see subs as being half as useful nor, if we are being realistic, are we in any position to defend the arctic, we completely rely on the US for better or worse.

Frankly one submarine can patrol and secure and deter an area several times larger then a fleet task group.

What you can't see makes you nervous

Beyond that you never make a foreign nation part of your primary defense strategy no matter how close we are.

America will promote and defend their interests before they promote or defend ours. And honestly America has its own interests in the Arctic that don't serve our interests.