GK .Dundas
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,636
- Points
- 960
You're actually seeing in miniature the American - Canadian relationship played out between Australia and New Zealand.
Replacing the Subs
- Thread starter Spencer100
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 6,284
- Points
- 1,040
And that's with the bonus pay and higher rates that submarines get in the RAN. Curious to see where they will actually berth the nuclear subs, usually a challenge of finding somewhere far enough away for a security/safety cordon while being close enough to be able to set up a maintenance facility and other logistics requirements.
I'm sure we'd probably do something similar and outsource the training to another country instead of reinventing the wheel, but I can't see us parking them in either Halifax or Esquimalt. For that reason alone I can't see us going nuclear, but AIP, fuel cell or some other diesel alternatives might be an option if we want some under ice patrol options.
I think our window was there in the 80s during the cold war and before the massive property value spike and buildup around both naval bases, but the US shut us down, so can't see it happening.
I think western militaries everywhere are having retention issues though. The old jingoistic cry of 'defend the King and country' doesn't really work unless you have someone like Russia on your actual doorstop.
The US may be a bit of an outlier, but they still have pretty strong nationalistic leanings, and it's also a good way to get a college education paid for, when it's out of reach for a lot of people.
We have no shortage of available areas within which to construct a secure base. Your problem would be getting people to actually move there
- Reaction score
- 21,958
- Points
- 1,260
Look where we have secure bases - you can do it anywhere you want., IF there is a will.
i’m a newby and i’m curious as to what the security/ safety courdon concerns are other than if the (assume American reactor) sub was destroyed in harbour that there is concern about the uranium. As I assume Halifax and Esquimalt are already secure facilities.
- Reaction score
- 6,284
- Points
- 1,040
Just good sense to have a standoff distance from any housing and both bases are basically downtown. Also would need a lot of infrastructure and support to do some of the repairs that we don't have room for on the existing bases.
The bases are secure for what we have now, but usually there is a lot more security rings around where the nuclear sub boats are parked. Think the jetties in Esquimalt are a bit further in, but most of the jetties in Halifax are less than a few hundred feet from the road with a single fence in the way, and additional security around some buildings (all of which you can see walking by from the street).
I expect we'd probably want to have them birthed further away than you can hit a golf ball though, and probably a few more additional perimeter fences, armed guards etc, so somewhere more remote than the provincial capitols would make sense..
Thank you. based on that I could maybe see FDU Pacific but Halifax & the Bedford basin (Ammunition depot) are out. I understand the additional buildings, skills and security clearances also required for operating and maintaining reactors and steam turbines.
- Reaction score
- 4,166
- Points
- 1,120
Some cities are also self declared "NUKE FREE" zones. So, that's part of why nuke subs only tie up in Dartmouth at the Shearwater jetty.
- Reaction score
- 22,063
- Points
- 1,360
Yeah, but you guys have ice cream in the DFACS.
Woulda couda shouda but IF Canada had proceeded to buy the Nuke Subs back in the nineties I could have seen then based at Port Hawkesbury or on the mainland side in the Canso straight. Interesting waters and far from major population centers and 150 Nautical miles closer to the European shipping lanes.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Others have mentioned keeping them at existing USN facilities; given their patrol and crew dynamics, wouldn’t that be cheaper and more efficient than constructing our own outside of our current facilities in Esq and Hfx?
Crewing; how would we, or would we even try, the Gold/Blue crew system like the USN has/had?
I defer to your superior knowledge .
Perhaps a future adult Administration could offer to split crew the Four American boats in Portsmouth N.H. They seem to be the closest Squadron to Canadian waters in the East.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,558
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 18,806
- Points
- 1,280
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Honourable Mention to the Krispy Cream donut section...
- Reaction score
- 22,063
- Points
- 1,360
- Reaction score
- 5,969
- Points
- 1,090
Some capability discussion here.
You buy a piece of military hardware for a capability. Nuke boats are not bought for the capability of going under ice. That's a misdirect frankly and is a common misunderstanding (in my humble opinion) of Cold War submarine strategies. Under ice is only essential if you want to get near Russian nuclear-armed missile submarines to stop their second strike capability.
Russia keeps those submarines in their own waters, under ice, protected by a ring of their own attack subs and with their own air cover. They were only there because it ensured Russia had the ability to strike NATO even if their own ground-based nuclear launchers were destroyed. The US and UK tried to get close to them and shadow them all the time because... the Cold War. If you could destroy Russian second strike capability then you had a chance to do a first strike yourself and not give them the chance to hit you back.
So that being said and the fact that there is thousands of miles of land between arctic waters and anything resembling proper economic or strategic targets no Russian submarine is going to use the Canadian arctic to attack Canada when they can do it just as easily from their own waters. That makes it a NORAD problem, not a navy problem.
Secondly there is no economically viable shipping in the arctic that would be worth sinking in the winter when the ice is across the NWP. When the ice clears up and the shipping comes there then normal military aircraft and ships can hunt submarines quite well.
The only advantage for under-ice capability I can see is to close off some areas of strategic mobility for the Russians using the Arctic to get into the Atlantic from a different direction (Pacific they have much easier access too). But proper use of sensors and conventional submarines/aircraft can cut off those approaches quite easily.
So let's argue on their real merits.
Power, sensors, endurance, speed, size. Does Canada want a submarine that can go into the Pacific with no basing and do some work on a long range patrol, unlimited endurance patrol? Or a submarine that can do land attack? Have the mobiity/speed to get places it needs to be rapidly (under ice is a valuable capability for going east to west coast quickly)?
When the ice argument falls away conventional boats don't look as bad frankly. They can do quite a bit of the stuff we want in a submarine fleet.
You buy a piece of military hardware for a capability. Nuke boats are not bought for the capability of going under ice. That's a misdirect frankly and is a common misunderstanding (in my humble opinion) of Cold War submarine strategies. Under ice is only essential if you want to get near Russian nuclear-armed missile submarines to stop their second strike capability.
Russia keeps those submarines in their own waters, under ice, protected by a ring of their own attack subs and with their own air cover. They were only there because it ensured Russia had the ability to strike NATO even if their own ground-based nuclear launchers were destroyed. The US and UK tried to get close to them and shadow them all the time because... the Cold War. If you could destroy Russian second strike capability then you had a chance to do a first strike yourself and not give them the chance to hit you back.
So that being said and the fact that there is thousands of miles of land between arctic waters and anything resembling proper economic or strategic targets no Russian submarine is going to use the Canadian arctic to attack Canada when they can do it just as easily from their own waters. That makes it a NORAD problem, not a navy problem.
Secondly there is no economically viable shipping in the arctic that would be worth sinking in the winter when the ice is across the NWP. When the ice clears up and the shipping comes there then normal military aircraft and ships can hunt submarines quite well.
The only advantage for under-ice capability I can see is to close off some areas of strategic mobility for the Russians using the Arctic to get into the Atlantic from a different direction (Pacific they have much easier access too). But proper use of sensors and conventional submarines/aircraft can cut off those approaches quite easily.
So let's argue on their real merits.
Power, sensors, endurance, speed, size. Does Canada want a submarine that can go into the Pacific with no basing and do some work on a long range patrol, unlimited endurance patrol? Or a submarine that can do land attack? Have the mobiity/speed to get places it needs to be rapidly (under ice is a valuable capability for going east to west coast quickly)?
When the ice argument falls away conventional boats don't look as bad frankly. They can do quite a bit of the stuff we want in a submarine fleet.
- Reaction score
- 21,958
- Points
- 1,260
Can they winter transition from Atlantic to Pacific?
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,150
- Points
- 1,160
Or can they get to the South China Sea quick enough to be of use if things go pear shaped there?
Sure, if there is a South Pacific Squadron of lets say three boats in Guam. Volunteers?
Similar threads
