LoboCanada said:Are we basing ships based on what NATO cares about (Europe) or what we care about? Our NATO commitment really only covers our one East-Ocean and is only starting to train near the arctic circle, yet we focus alot on the East-Coast. If Russia aggression is a concern then why isn't there a NATO Air Policing mission or a SNMG3 to support 2 of its members (US/CAN) with a direct border to Russia?
I agree with LoboCanada that we need to think more of our own interests. Except I think we need to go a little further and we need to consider our defense needs if our allies get tired of defending us or they side with our opponents. Trump has been vocal about his frustration with NATO countries not contributing their promised share while the U.S. contributes double 4%vs 2% GDP. I have been to the States and heard the people complain about their tax dollars being used to defend other countries. As the U.S. gets more and more financially strapped these sentiments will grow.
The world is changing quickly these days and I don't believe the U.S. would let us be invaded by China or Russia but China can and will push their might as far as they can get away with. The Covid pandemic has shown the U.S.A's true colours when they wanted to cut off our supply of medical equipment. Thankfully cooler heads prevailed this time but it drove home the reality that the U.S. will always look out for itself first. U.S. companies own or control every large defense/aerospace company in Canada to the extent it looks intentional. If we ever get into a big enough row with the U.S. they could quickly cripple our defense companies.
China has been investing heavily in projects in Africa that the countries cannot afford so China has loaned them the money. This has given China great influence over these countries. China has also invested heavily in European companies and if they continue to grow those investments they could put a lot of pressure on those countries to vote against us at the UN or NATO. Money talks loudest of all!
No one likes a leach. And by not honouring our NATO/UN commitments we are that leach. We need to honour our NATO/UN commitments and go beyond them so as to maintain our reputation while keeping mind of the fact those organizations can be corrupted.
This is why earlier I suggested we need to develop these technologies ourselves. Babcock has tore these subs almost completely apart and rebuilt them in recent years. If they acquire a license to build a European design the licensee will have to teach them how to build their sub from the keel up. They may hold onto certain technologies like the AIP/nuclear systems and insist on installing them. However we would still advance our abilities in sub building/maintaining greatly.
I advocate for a under ice capable submarine with enough to run 1-2 in each ocean at all times. If Australia can afford to operate 6 subs than why can't we afford 8-10. I believe the RCN should also have a fleet of the heaviest class ice breaker to respond to any sovereignty challenges that may occur in the arctic but that is for another discussion.