I think as a fellow armchair admiral I'm gonna give the two retired Admirals (including one who is The Guy in submarines) the benifit of the doubt on SSN vs SSK on Canadian requirements and the pros vs cons of both systems.
I feel my point was lost. I'm not challenging the reasoning of the three retired RCN Admirals for the RCN to select a SSK based upon the current constraints facing them.
To make this easier, I have listened to the podcast again and have summarised their commentary from 15:10 to 25:00 where they elaborate, as follows:
- SSN's will unrealistically stretch existing RCN workforce concerns (existing recruitment challenges, on top of an already small trained skill base) on the basis that SSN's have substantially larger crewing- i.e. 130 to 30;
- SSN's require additional infrastructure (reactor refuelling) and new specific training requirements (nuke school etc);
- Capability- conceded that SSN's have advantages- range/time on station advantages- but within their expected AOR (specifically references icecap operations) an SSK can achieve the same capability (doesn't require long under-ice transit as Allies are already that capability);
- The procurement schedule is already too tight as it, but to "go back" and do another analysis of already aware challenges is the "last thing we need";
- RCN Commander is quoted as saying "they" don't want an SSN based upon above and that it is a "bridge to far";
- "We can't get there" [as] Allied SSN construction is already under existing stress. Specifically references US issues, Australia and UK;
- Infers SSN's require "nation building and long term planning" taking 30 years to build the capacity to "get there" (inferring this is too late for the RCN/CAF);
- Asks "do we really need to 'get there"? Highlights how RCN can complement their allies (US) specifically with continental defence. Noted that 'their' allies (inferring the USN) like "very capable" complementary SSK's in a force mix;
- The level of investment required is politically unrealistic (too expensive for a Canadian population to consider)- references a required 3% of GDP spending on defence to sustain SSN's;
- SSN cost would be exorbitant and bankrupt the CAF;
- Political concerns- just not practical in an environment where CAF procurement is politicised. References past damaging debates i.e. F-35 where "arbitrary and stupid decisions" were made. Throwing SSN into the mix would be "unhelpful";
- Suspects RAN are having challenges (procuring their SSN's) and suspect these will get harder as they go forward;
- Mention of "a lot of other high-end capabilities across the spectrum" of the CAF which could be "far more useful strategically (at lower cost) than pursuing" SSN's;
- References alleged current AU concerns about "what they have signed up to" with "that train not going anywhere fast for Australia" and that "we are going to be much better off not being on a nuclear submarine train like they are"; and
- References other elements of AUKUS (inferred as pillar 2) that are important. Mentions "Four Eyes" and infers RCN will be 'ok as long as they continue to exchange information of submarine domains through Four Eyes, then we won’t need to be in Aukus necessarily' (infers Pilar 1/ SSNs).
It was noted that
"there are a lot of armchair experts clamouring for us to go down that path ..."
I largely agree with them and the CAF/RCN are definitely in a bind. My question to them though (and others) 'as an armchair expert' and foreigner seeing it from a different perspective is as follows:
- "Where does the Canada government see itself in the world, and what do they truly value"?
I'd argue that the ambition of Canada/the RCN doesn't match her size, position or responsibility. A lot is referenced regarding the importance of their allied relationships, but is Canadian Government actually a dependable, reliable and capable ally themselves (same can be said for NZ tbh- another topic)? Individually I've found Canadians to be the opposite and incredible people so please see this as a challenge to their political class and decision making alone.
In reviewing above, the Admirals look defeated from years of politicking, underinvestment, and complications/ dependency from a powerful neighbour to the south. They talk about
"other high-end capabilities across the spectrum" of the CAF which could be
"far more useful strategically", but I question how they could summon any strategic capability to deter a potential enemy when their ability to project hard power is quite limited (and will be for some time ahead).
The 2024 CAF revised their defence policy with the release of
"Our North, Strong and Free: A Renewed Vision for Canada’s Defence".
I note it aims for Canada to be:
- "STRONG at home, SECURE in North America, ENGAGED in the world … Canada must continue to be a responsible partner that adds value to traditional alliances, including NORAD, NATO, and the Five-Eyes community. Canada must balance these fundamental relationships with the need to engage with emerging powers, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region".
I read
"must balance" and pondered. It sounded almost appeasist and the sound of ‘that friend’ who goes always missing when you need them.
Again I question where Canada sees itself in this world, as my answer based upon observations is
"not where it should be". You are a relatively prosperous nation geolocated across three major maritime domains, yet your ability to hinder or deter aggression or act decisively across those domains is nearly zero.
I previously worked in an environment where I represented my country and the values we espouse. I’d like to think we ‘did our bit’ and overachieved based upon the more limited resources possessed. You knew where we stood and collectively we were part of a team that stood for something.
Canada should stand for so much more (and I think they want/ can be). Greater leadership, ambition, dependability and presence. Canada has greatly benefited from the rules-based order and the prosperity it has provided since WWII, yet contributes very little to it. If that requires 3+% of GDP, then it is an investment in the collective security that we all embrace and prosper from. If that is hard politically then call your politicians and ask them why. You get the political leaders you elect so make them accountable.
I used to look at that flag and was jealous how unique and uniting it is. On the surface it alludes to a confident/ proud, prosperous and values-based nation. Very unique, but what does it truly stand for? Again, FWIW I was massively jealous considering we have a flag of a foreign nation on ours, but that’s another story.
Whether or not the debate is about an SSN, or another 'strategic capability' capable of deterring aggression, can I ask the Admirals to always contrast their debate around
where they should be (in the world, based upon their capability and values), not solely around
what they are capable of salvaging. The absence of this counterbalance in the debate is jarring, as in my eyes I will always see you as a nation capable of much, much more.
There is my 2 cents. Next.
PS- What the heck is "Four Eyes" as opposed to FVEY. Did someone kick out NZ without telling me? 
maritime-executive.com
