Try G2A They don't have much for "Cold waters" but I saved a ton on Civ 6.
Replacing the Subs
- Thread starter Spencer100
- Start date
Try G2A They don't have much for "Cold waters" but I saved a ton on Civ 6.
- Reaction score
- 18,777
- Points
- 1,280
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Well, I did pass thru Hawaii (never for SCC or RIMPAC) a few times but closet I came to Jax was flying over…Florida must be nicer than the Ditch?
- Reaction score
- 18,777
- Points
- 1,280
Why? Changing the power generation method isn't a "plug and play" thing.
The Australians were originally looking at a diesel version of a French SSN before they cancelled it.
Maxman1
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,554
- Points
- 1,160
But it also isn't physically impossible. France is still working on a conventional version of the Barracuda for the Netherlands' Walrus replacement program.
For Canada, between the infrastructure needed for nuclear subs and public and foreign opposition, nuclear is more or less a non-starter.
Everything indicates the cancelation was politically motivated rather than issues with the design, as they decided they wanted nuclear subs after all.
- Reaction score
- 1,856
- Points
- 1,260
Housing the CDN subs in Connecticut and Washington would easily solve that issue for the short/near term concerns until proper long term solutions are implemented.
deepblue202
Guest
- Reaction score
- 21
- Points
- 130
So if miracles can happen I assume if we want nuclear our only choice would be with the French Suffren class with maybe an American weapons suit.
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,201
- Points
- 1,040
Why?
You would have choice between an AUKUS built in OZ or Britain or a Virginia Class block IV.
Could be good as you would have two US company bidders (EB and HII) and the US government. Plus two Countries and two different divisions of BAE.
US would rather us buy either of those two options than US weapon and sensor tech on the French boat.
Maxman1
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,554
- Points
- 1,160
Only if the US blocked us from buying British subs, again.
- Reaction score
- 1,856
- Points
- 1,260
Buy 6-9 Virginia's and maintain them in the US over the short/near term. Look to build up the resources in Halifax to maintain the East Coast fleet there. Consider leaving the West Coast in Washington for the long term.
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,150
- Points
- 1,160
There are significant manning issues to be overcome if we're to get Virginia-Class subs. Not only the issue of the skills required to operate a nuclear sub, but also just sheer numbers:
4 x Victoria-Class @ 53 pers/boat = 212 pers total
6 x Virginia-Class @ 135 pers/boat = 810 pers total, or
9 x Virginia-Class @ 135 pers/boat = 1,215 pers total
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
The crew size of the Astutes is slightly smaller; 98 with ability to go to 109.
deepblue202
Guest
- Reaction score
- 21
- Points
- 130
True I would go with the U.S. and Great Britain first but I only see the U.S. able to increase production of new submarines as I think the U.K. will be tapped out with their orders and Australia's.
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,201
- Points
- 1,040
And the Arrow was secretly stopped by the US too. Urgh!
They didn't block anything. We cancelled ourselves for cost and the end of the cold war. And the Arrow was secretly stopped by the US too. Urgh!
Plus 40 years later they would absolutely want us to have new subs it helps them. Plus $ for their industry too.
- Reaction score
- 1,856
- Points
- 1,260
Challenge - yes, for certain
Opportunity to crew one of the most advanced machines in the world and compensation that should go along with it - yes for certain
The timelines to bring on line 6-9 for these should easily provide enough runway to get the numbers need to crew them. I see alot of, 'we can't do that because of X' on here - I don't see alot of 'we can do this if we plan accordingly, pay accordingly', etc, etc'. The mindset needs to change in my humble opinion.
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,201
- Points
- 1,040
If I had the magic PM wand. I would call the President and say we are all in on AUKUS. We will buy one of the two subs but we are go though a bid process. We will won't build in Canada but want in on the system supplier contracts. Our personnel will start training with you and the RN. Because we know AUKUS will have move projects coming down the line we will take the lead on some of them.
Also in the meantime can we talk about you buying other stuff from us (plus most of it is US compnaies with Canadian plant so...) We have a beautiful GDLS-C looking for work and Electric Boat seems a nice place to have RCN subs manufactured. Wink wink. Plus did I mention GD has cheap coders in Ottawa....
Also in the meantime can we talk about you buying other stuff from us (plus most of it is US compnaies with Canadian plant so...) We have a beautiful GDLS-C looking for work and Electric Boat seems a nice place to have RCN subs manufactured. Wink wink. Plus did I mention GD has cheap coders in Ottawa....
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,150
- Points
- 1,160
I didn't say it was impossible...just that there were "significant manning issues to be overcome".
The problem is we have manning issues in just about every area of the CAF currently and haven't so far found ways to overcome them so while certainly not impossible I think it would be wrong to simply hand wave the problem away.
De-unify the armed forces into the Canadian Army and RCN (with their respective air forces - we don't have, or will ever have enough air assets for a fully functional, separate RCAF). Having 2 separate military entities, with their own separate budget would require the gov't to increase defense spending.
(yes, I know, won't happen - just saying that it would probably be the only way to increase spending on the navy to be able to buy more ships (including subs).
(yes, I know, won't happen - just saying that it would probably be the only way to increase spending on the navy to be able to buy more ships (including subs).
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
I’d argue to de-fund the Army, and strengthen the RCAF (NORAD obligations and all) and the RCN. Stand up the RCM with the remaining land forces (Royal Canadian Marines).
The RCAF is arguably the most operational part of the CAF day to day, year to year, even if you separate SAR.
Our army is small and will never operate outside a coalition whereas a single MPA can kill a major asset like a sub (SSGN, SSBN, SSN, SSK…). That is just ASW not all the other missions LRP/CMMA will be doing.
The RCAF is arguably the most operational part of the CAF day to day, year to year, even if you separate SAR.
Our army is small and will never operate outside a coalition whereas a single MPA can kill a major asset like a sub (SSGN, SSBN, SSN, SSK…). That is just ASW not all the other missions LRP/CMMA will be doing.
Similar threads
