Replacing the Subs

[Colin Parkinson]

I think that modern DE bring a lot more to the table than you realize. I think it would be a mistake to let go our subs, if we ever want to get a seat at the table. Lot's of places a DE sub can go the nukes will not. Plus we have several operating bases on the far side of the Pacific they can use, as already demonstrated by the Victoria Class

 

[Happy Guy]

When you look at the range requirements for Canada the only viable option is nuclear.


It’s 5,200 Nautical Miles to Taiwan from Victoria, 4,000 to Japan, 5,200 to South Korea and 7,000 to Australia as let’s face it Subs are a Pacific Pivot item.
None of those distances are something that a non nuclear boat is going to do submerged.

That isn’t even considering patrolling the Canadian Arctic waters.

Since Canada doesn’t seem to want to go Nuclear, perhaps it’s best to putting the Submarine Question to bed, and have the RCN focus on the surface combatant and supply aspect.

The current government posturing about a Pacific pivot is simply talk, with the exception of a trade agreement. As you mentioned the Pacific Ocean is vast and is the Arctic region. If they were serious they would seriously need to augment the RCN and RCAF with the necessary vessels and aircraft to do the job. As much as it pains me to say this, given the limited Defence budget, the Army would need to face cuts. In addition, there would need to rebuild the diplomatic and humanitarian aid capacity to establish strong political ties in the region, more comprehensive trade agreements like the CPTPP, secure logisitcal agreements, staging/base rights, and so forth to protect a very long and vulnerable strategic line of communications.

Nuclear powered submarines, while idela, are simply not an option for Canada primarily due: to their massive cost; large infrastructure requirements and their maintenance; intensive manpower requirements, training and their retention; and need for substantiational physical and cyber security of assets.

The government knows what it has to do, but it can only focus on the short term (perhaps up to four-five years) due to election cycles and ever dynamic political and economic situations which grabs their attention.

 

[Spencer100]

The current government posturing about a Pacific pivot is simply talk, with the exception of a trade agreement. As you mentioned the Pacific Ocean is vast and is the Arctic region. If they were serious they would seriously need to augment the RCN and RCAF with the necessary vessels and aircraft to do the job. As much as it pains me to say this, given the limited Defence budget, the Army would need to face cuts. In addition, there would need to rebuild the diplomatic and humanitarian aid capacity to establish strong political ties in the region, more comprehensive trade agreements like the CPTPP, secure logisitcal agreements, staging/base rights, and so forth to protect a very long and vulnerable strategic line of communications.

Nuclear powered submarines, while idela, are simply not an option for Canada primarily due: to their massive cost; large infrastructure requirements and their maintenance; intensive manpower requirements, training and their retention; and need for substantiational physical and cyber security of assets.

The government knows what it has to do, but it can only focus on the short term (perhaps up to four-five years) due to election cycles and ever dynamic political and economic situations which grabs their attention.

Add to the simple fact the government is just doing what they told to be their pay masters. So none of the above.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If we buy a SK or Japanese sub, then basing them over there, becomes quite a bit easier. You could base a sub over there, with support from the build shipyard and fly crews over. The basing agreement could be part of the competition.

 

[YZT580]

If we buy a SK or Japanese sub, then basing them over there, becomes quite a bit easier. You could base a sub over there, with support from the build shipyard and fly crews over. The basing agreement could be part of the competition.

and where do your subs go when that base has been targeted, which it will. Shipyards are prime targets and both Korea and Japan will be ground zero.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

and where do your subs go when that base has been targeted, which it will. Shipyards are prime targets and both Korea and Japan will be ground zero.

Japan is getting a robust BMD and has lot's of harbours to use. The enemy could also load up a cargo ship with cruise missiles and take out Esquimalt as well. At some point you have to take operational risks. Plus the subs can be resupplied in a safe bay using a crane equipped Handymax freighter. This deployment can happen in peacetime for training and exclusion zone enforcement, which is what we did with the Victoria's. In fact if we get 6 subs, it will be good to have one permanently based over there. that can get support and servicing. It would certainly help with recruitment of crews to have a interesting mission set with a fixed rotation schedule so people can have a career and life.

 

[DBNSG]

Japan is getting a robust BMD and has lot's of harbours to use. The enemy could also load up a cargo ship with cruise missiles and take out Esquimalt as well. At some point you have to take operational risks. Plus the subs can be resupplied in a safe bay using a crane equipped Handymax freighter. This deployment can happen in peacetime for training and exclusion zone enforcement, which is what we did with the Victoria's. In fact if we get 6 subs, it will be good to have one permanently based over there. that can get support and servicing. It would certainly help with recruitment of crews to have a interesting mission set with a fixed rotation schedule so people can have a career and life.

How about Hawaii. Quality of life stipends with the weather and I bet that would help recruitment.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

How about Hawaii. Quality of life stipends with the weather and I bet that would help recruitment.

I suspect that would be a different mission set and mostly around training with the USN.

 

[DBNSG]

I suspect that would be a different mission set and mostly around training with the USN.

That mission may be the very thing that saves the Submarine capability in Canada. Tell me the Yanks would have a problem with clever and devious Canadian Sub commanders truncating American Captains careers? Get better or lose your command. BWAHAHA!!!!

 

[Kirkhill]

The answer to Canadian Armed Forces retention problems.

Turks and Caicos: Canada's 11th Province?

History and timeline of the various proposed unions between Canada and the Turks and Caicos Islands, including recent developments.

www.visittci.com

The Yanks can get pilots to man Elmendorf. We can't get pilots to man Cold Lake. Presumably the difference is that the Yanks will see California, Guam, Hawaii and Florida in their careers as well.

Canada needs some better bases, perhaps some bigger Operational Support Hubs. If not, maybe we should just buy a warmer province.

 

[Maxman1]

The answer to Canadian Armed Forces retention problems.

Turks and Caicos: Canada's 11th Province?

History and timeline of the various proposed unions between Canada and the Turks and Caicos Islands, including recent developments.

www.visittci.com

The Yanks can get pilots to man Elmendorf. We can't get pilots to man Cold Lake. Presumably the difference is that the Yanks will see California, Guam, Hawaii and Florida in their careers as well.

Canada needs some better bases, perhaps some bigger Operational Support Hubs. If not, maybe we should just buy a warmer province.

Or reopen CFS Bermuda.

 

[Rainbow1910]

The answer to Canadian Armed Forces retention problems.

The Yanks can get pilots to man Elmendorf. We can't get pilots to man Cold Lake. Presumably the difference is that the Yanks will see California, Guam, Hawaii and Florida in their careers as well.

Canada needs some better bases, perhaps some bigger Operational Support Hubs. If not, maybe we should just buy a warmer province.

The difference is that the Americans have an actual reason to have bases in areas like California, Guam, Hawaii and Florida. I'm not even touching on the can of worms that admitting the Turks and Caicos Islands as a province would be but even if it was, what would be the point of putting a base there? The only purpose I can see is training and is it really worth all of the cost and hassle of building the base and operating it that far from Canada proper just for some better scenery? Seems like a vanity project.

 

[Good2Golf]

The difference is that the Americans have an actual reason to have bases in areas like California, Guam, Hawaii and Florida. I'm not even touching on the can of worms that admitting the Turks and Caicos Islands as a province would be but even if it was, what would be the point of putting a base there? The only purpose I can see is training and is it really worth all of the cost and hassle of building the base and operating it that far from Canada proper just for some better scenery? Seems like a vanity project.

They better be ready to pony up into CPP!

 

[GR66]

They better be ready to pony up into CPP!

Nah....they'd obviously opt our for their own T&CPP

 

[Colin Parkinson]

That mission may be the very thing that saves the Submarine capability in Canada. Tell me the Yanks would have a problem with clever and devious Canadian Sub commanders truncating American Captains careers? Get better or lose your command. BWAHAHA!!!!

I am not saying don't do it, the O-boats spent a lot of time playing mechanical mouse to the USN. However a SK/Japan posting still allows them to do that, but also do operational roles of surveillance, tracking Russian, Chinese and NK subs. Not to mention strengthening ties with the SK and Japanese navies.

 

[Kirkhill]

The difference is that the Americans have an actual reason to have bases in areas like California, Guam, Hawaii and Florida. I'm not even touching on the can of worms that admitting the Turks and Caicos Islands as a province would be but even if it was, what would be the point of putting a base there? The only purpose I can see is training and is it really worth all of the cost and hassle of building the base and operating it that far from Canada proper just for some better scenery? Seems like a vanity project.

The Americans also have an actual reason to have bases in areas like Alaska (and Greenland for that matter). And they manage to staff them.
Canada seems to have difficulty staffing bases in places they need them.

Canadians don't seem to like their country very much.

 

[Spencer100]

Canadians don't seem to like their country very much.

Less and less everyday.

 

[Happy Guy]

The answer to Canadian Armed Forces retention problems.

Turks and Caicos: Canada's 11th Province?

History and timeline of the various proposed unions between Canada and the Turks and Caicos Islands, including recent developments.

www.visittci.com

The Yanks can get pilots to man Elmendorf. We can't get pilots to man Cold Lake. Presumably the difference is that the Yanks will see California, Guam, Hawaii and Florida in their careers as well.

Canada needs some better bases, perhaps some bigger Operational Support Hubs. If not, maybe we should just buy a warmer province.

Operational Support Hubs are simply logistical staging bases that are activated when required. With the exception of 1 or 2 hubs (that are at min manning), the majority of usually not manned.

 

[dimsum]

The Americans also have an actual reason to have bases in areas like Alaska (and Greenland for that matter). And they manage to staff them.

The US military has a huge planned turnover so they don’t really care if people want their posting or not. Love of country has little to do with it. That being said, the US military is also struggling with retention and recruiting at the moment.

Also, unlike Canada, many folks join the US military for medical and dental benefits. The GI Bill helps as well for education. Most aren’t looking for a career so there is a huge turnover at the end of first contract.

 

[Underway]

The US military has a huge planned turnover so they don’t really care if people want their posting or not. Love of country has little to do with it. That being said, the US military is also struggling with retention and recruiting at the moment.

Also, unlike Canada, many folks join the US military for medical and dental benefits. The GI Bill helps as well for education. Most aren’t looking for a career so there is a huge turnover at the end of first contract.

When confronted with the "you're recruiting whole gangs" statement a friend of mine who was in US Army recruiting replied.. "I know. The big green machine needs to be fed and it doesn't care what feeds it."