So you've given up on the possibility that Canada could contribute in any meaningful way to international maritime operations? Or that Canada will be a useful member of NATO? Or participate in UN sanctioned military operations?
I ask, because you seem eager to gut the RCN (and the other services) of much of its operational capability for EEZ and border protection.
Either you have a CCG for EEZ duties or you have the RCN for EEZ duties. Why duplicate roles? Leave the border protection duties to the CCG, and they don't need the capability to fit sonars or UUVs or 40mm guns (aren't CCG vessels unarmed?). It is wasted money. Leave the war roles to the RCN.
Pardon?
A fleet of SSKs for EEZ patrol and fishery protection? And when this SSK comes across a Russian trawler illegally fishing in Canadian water, what is is going to do? Fire a torpedo across the bows? Surface and politely ask for them to be "Good chaps" and kindly desist?
A submarine is a very expensive offensive weapon, massively wasted on border protection. Get a patrol boat.
Don't want to duplicate roles. What happens when the navy who patrols EEZ gets mostly called away on foreign assignments? Fewer patrols? That is exactly what is happening now. A CCG boarder protection fleet with a navy that is built for blue water projection overcomes this. BTW, the Canadian Coast Guard's mission is not at all what the USCG missions is. Observe the wording on the CCG website:
Canadians expect the federal government to:
protect the marine environment;
support economic growth;
ensure public safety on the water; and
ensure Canada’s sovereignty and security by establishing a strong federal presence in our waters.
The Canadian Coast Guard helps the government meet the public’s expectation of clean, safe, secure, healthy and productive waters and coastlines.
Notice the wording that leads one to believe they have something to do with sovereignty protection when their real mission follows. Nothing about boarder protection at all. Now consider this quote:
"If a colleague from the US Navy said to me: 'Our Coast Guard watches over the first 200 miles and then the Navy takes over. How does it work in Canada?',
I would have to say: 'I can tell you about the outside 200 miles, but you don't want to hear about the inside 200 miles.'"
– Rear Admiral (Ret'd) Bruce Johnston, former Commander,
Maritime Forces (Pacific) testifying before the Committee.
Lets put in place what most Canadian's think we already have, a CCG that actually does boarder protection just like the USCG. The CCG does some fishery work but that is all. Our Navy should be principally a blue water fleet which is what the SCSC ships are intended to be anyway. I reduced the SCSCS from 15 to 10 to accommodate some extra subs for blue water / eel patrol and more capable CCG fleet.
Supporting fisheries patrols and drug interdiction are some of the missions the Victoria class subs are supposed to do so I'm not sure why a couple of subs on duty per coast is unrealistic to sometimes assist CCG with intelligence gathering while patrolling for naval threats. BTW, the 40mm gun is what then USCG uses.
According to the RCN, subs are 1/3 the cost of a frigate or a destroyer to operate. They are also the best platform for detecting other subs which, IMO from a military standpoint, is what Canada has to focus on from a defence-of-NA perspective. The Germans have a 30mm cannon that fires from a mast even under water in case you want to know how to deal with that pesky Russian trawler but they should have to.
The Navy has responsibilities around the world as many on this blog have pointed out. The Navy's surface ships will be mostly occupied around the world, in training, or in maintenance which is why it is better to have a dedicated CCG to boarder patrol and fishery protection and have a handful of subs for full time coastal defence.
I find it funny that you are ripping on a submarine's percieved inability to stop the Russia trawler except by asking it please because that is exactly what the the CCG does and the new Hero class ships designed for fishery patrol have no armament. The 6 officers on board carry firearms and pepper spray. Not very intimidating either. Maybe all we need to do is mount a pepper spray mast on the sub.........
In WW2 the Germans submarines often captured and boarded individual merchant ships at the start of the war, sinking them with charges. It wasn't until the threat of hidden guns and the convoy system that the subs stayed hidden and launched their torpedoes. To be clear, I am not advocating using subs to board ships for Canada, or even confront them. Armed CCG should do this. If they need a sub to be in the area to collect information while hiding out of sight then that is what they should be used for, otherwise patrolling for naval threats - other nations subs, etc.
You mentioned submarines were an offensive weapon. I agree if we're strictly talking SSNs but SSKs can be great for continental defence too.
Under my plan there is 10 SCSCS plus 2 JSS strictly for international operations. No limiting of Canadian power projection there. The only beef I could see you having is that they are Absalons and maybe they can't be fitted with enough armament to make them up to required standards.
