Although SSNs are the best submarine option for Canada, our pollies have no interest and the US considers the Canadian portion of the Arctic Ocean as their lake hence no SSNs from them. Our defence R&D is minimal so AUKUS projects involving Canada offers Jack to the other partners.
www.seaspan.com
www.cp24.com
You have to consider the brain trust behind the updated defence policy, hardly inspiring. I expect vague promises and a bunch of BS on support for Canada’s defence industries. There will be no commitment towards 2% GDP for defence. Any program requiring serious funding will be years in the future when the current batch of pollies are long gone.Toronto, Canada and Global Breaking News – CP24
Most recent News News business news stories and video from CP24
Canada finally getting ready to release it's new defense paper today. I believe it's well over a year late. I just hope that whatever direction they go with this updated paper that they actually fully fund it.
From page 23 of the report.Full document is here (click on the graphic on the right side of the page for the full PDF):
Our North, Strong and Free: A Renewed Vision for Canada’s Defence - Canada.ca
A Renewed Vision for Canada’s Defencewww.canada.ca
Los of "exploring options for...." A statement claiming increasing %GDP to 1.76 by 2029-30, sure to impress other NATO membersFull document is here (click on the graphic on the right side of the page for the full PDF):
Our North, Strong and Free: A Renewed Vision for Canada’s Defence - Canada.ca
A Renewed Vision for Canada’s Defence
. Major investment in Arctic defence, a noble and worthwhile goal but lets face it, the least expensive plan which will face minimal political blowback domestically. Perhaps one useful idea for Arctic defence would be a serious upgrade of HDW ships armament from their current 25 mm gun. New helicopters, submarines, missiles, and new artillery, all this sounds good but when? Certainly not in this decade and a likely change in government will probably complicate things.
They will wait for an ice free Arctic and buy the least expensive SSK available. The good news is they probably won't be "used"
Junior must have received a new batch of really good weed. Seriously, I doubt the other partners would want us unless they feel our nuclear industry could help their collective supply chain issues regarding SSN production and sustainability.
I recall a discussion a while ago that the RCN had explored the possibility of acquiring nuclear submarines, but has concluded this would not be possible until the 2050s with given industrial capacity, which I think sounds about right, given the problems facing Australia with Aukus. The plan, from what I recall, was to bridge that gap with a conventional capacity. If I had to guess, that's what the PM was referring to. I have found no reference to nuclear subs in the new defence update.
This is the quote from Vanquish's link in post 3491, "Trudeau says Canada will consider whether it needs to purchase nuclear-powered submarines to better ensure it can defend Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic." Now I realise that's just junior BS and this also applies to SSKs as well as long as he continues as PM. As Canada has a significant nuclear industry, we could, if the commitment and funding are in place, be in the same position as Australia to build SSNs. Australia has sub building experience but no significant nuclear industry and Canada is the reverse. Both countries require US/UK support for this though.
This quote shows that the document is more aspirational rather than realistic. To include the words persistent, under-ice and conventionally powered in the same sentence shows that they are hoping for some magic new technology to appear. Conventionally powered submarines can only conduct, at this time, limited duration excursions under the edge of the ice. For persistent operations in the arctic either the ice has to have reduced to almost nil or nuclear power is used. That is the reality.
It might be the former that is likely, an ice free Arctic so SSK a remote maybe.
I'm well aware of what Trudeau said. I'm just pointing out that the RCN has determined that they need a conventional capability to bridge the gap to a time in the future where some industrial capacity would be available in US/UK to build Canada some nuclear subs, assuming approval is given to move in that direction. From what I recall, their analysis, based on UK, US, and now Australian requirements, was that capacity would not be available until the 2050s, and the current subs, no matter what we do to extend their lives, will simply not make it that long. Presumably, 2050s is when the US, Brits, and Aussies would have filled their needs, but that's just an educated guess. Also, presumably that's based on their estimates of when the current sub building capacity would have spare slots. If additional build capacity is brought online, that could change the timeline. In any case, there will be new SSKs before there are any nucs - submarine replacement, for the first time, is now part of the official program, so we should all celebrate that as a solid win.
Regardless of whether it’s SSKs or SSNs, can you really envision a program where this huge investment would be purchased off shore? NFW unless it’s only 4 boats which is totally inadequate. BTW, the time required to explore the options will be well beyond the shelf life of many members on this forum.
Probably the only timely option for SSNs if this is deemed the best path forward.