Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I firmly believe SSNs are the only realistic choice for the RAN given the geographical and threat environment Australia is faced with. As for a “train going nowhere”, sounds like a sound bite from junior’s gang of fools. That being said, there are concerns about the industrial capacity for SSNs and other key manufacturing capacity for the West in general. Japan and SKorea are in better shape but they are vulnerable, hence the real likelihood they will set up manufacturing in Australia and North America as a fallback. This will also be a fallback to appease Trump should he return as POTUS.
CorvetteCrunch
New Member
In all fairness, the exact quote was "I think there is a high probability that we're gonna see that train is not going anywhere fast for Australia and we are going to be better off not being on a nuclear submarine train like they are."
Canada is entirely better off not getting involved with SSN's and while I do think they are the right option for Australia, I don't think its inaccurate to say the "train" isn't going anywhere fast. That is just due to the complexities and issues that come from trying to procure and operate SSN's in the current world environment as a nation like Australia.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Agree the OZ acquisition probably won’t be as fast as they would like. Australia does have the advantage of being able to extend Collins which isn’t viable for the Victoria class. Hindsight is 20/20. A Collins 2 with a transition to SSNs might have been the way to go for Australia albeit an expensive option but submarine manufacturing skills would be maintained for the subsequent SSNs. Long term, Canada should have a SSK to SSN transition, assuming a future government can get its $hit together wrt submarines…and a bunch of other kit.
I think Canada has the advantage of being able to stay close to it's shores, which Australia doesn't. Canada can absolutely use non nuclear options.
As for Australia's "train" being slow, I totally disagree. While the path is very, very long, I've rarely seen a military hardware plan move along so quickly, according to plan, without issues. As soon as AUKUS was announced, Australia sent personnel to the US military schools for nuclear subs, and 3 have graduated. There are other placements and schooling which have commenced or completed, and I have never, ever seen such immediate action happen in Australia before. AUKUS is being taken very seriously. And this is not just 1 country, but 3, all renouned for delays. The journey is long. But everyone has started
Underway
Active Member
Everyone always forgets about NORAD which integrates naval, air and space. And then there is the cyber and domestic law enforcement integration that no other country does like CAN/US does. Canada and US have far broader and deeper intelligence sharing across multiple areas of mutual interest then the US has with anyone else.
5eyes is still a thing because it's intelligence sharing. AUKUS is largely a technology/research sharing and basing deal.
Apples and oranges.
Pretty difficult to verify as this is a highly confidential topic. I don't think it is helpful to say one is better, deeper or broader. You would have to be an expert in both relationships. I'm not sure anyone is, any view would have to be a specific viewpoint and essentially an opinion.
I would point out that Australia has special relationships with the US, and is frequently the only country outside of the US that operates certain equipment, that embeds deeply in US security, intelligence and military functions and actively participates in all sort clandestine stuff all over the world, and has done so for a very long time. Like overthrowing governments in South America. Most people don't know about it because that's the point.
Declassified documents show Australia assisted CIA in coup against Chile’s Salvador Allende
Former Liberal PM Billy McMahon approved spy agency request to conduct covert operations in Chile, a move later overturned by Gough Whitlam
www.theguardian.com
- The E7 program literally integrates naval, air and space, commands and controls US and allied assets in combat missions.
- The Mk48 ADCAP CBASS involved huge amounts of submarine signature sharing between Australia and the US. A key part is said that Australia has signatures that the US wanted but didn't have.
- AUKUS involves technology transfers around very closely guarded nuclear secrets as well as sensor, computing, propulsion, etc.
- Growlers signal capabilities and databases are not widely shared, even amongst five eyes.
Breaking Barriers: First Australian Deputy Commander arrives at PACAF
As PACAF’s Australian Deputy Commander, or DCOM as known in Air Force vernacular, Air Vice-Marshal Newman works alongside U.S. Air Force DCOM counterpart, Lt. Gen. James Jacobson, to assist management
www.pacaf.af.mil
While Australia isn't in NATO, we don't have to share our US relationship with a bunch of others. We can have an intimate twosome by ourselves.
Canada, while in the club, often does weird things, and it seems, Canada often assumes the US will always agree with them or forgive them. Australia has to work hard for the US love, it is a tough and vigorous love. Australia's history with the UK, means it has abandonment issues.
Case in point, and because I am old and remember too much..
Spying chain's cover blown - New Zealand News - NZ Herald
Latest breaking news articles, photos, video, blogs, reviews, analysis, opinion and reader comment from New Zealand and around the World - NZ Herald
www.nzherald.co.nz
Nice.
Canada definitely has an amazing opportunity to partner with the US. But Canada, with limited often old, out of date, sometimes non-US equipment, in limited conflicts, and Canada not being far from the US, means that the geography of Canada is accessible to much the same way as it is from the US. Canada also sees, like many NATO nations, NATO being strong and endlessly unifying.
Canada doesn't operate Aegis ships, doesn't operate Virginia combat systems, doesn't have dedicated AWACs type capability which the US desperately needs, doesn't have EW fighters/Super hornets, doesn't have modern weapons like LRASM and SM6, doesn't have 70 F-35 fighters in operation and largest non-US user, doesn't seem to have a hypersonics program, doesn't have strong expeditionary capability, doesn't have strong enablers for that, is located right next to the CONUS, so doesn't really provide advantage and key points for Sub communication, sat tracking, forward deploying of forces and resources. Australia is also influential in its region, where as Canada's region is basically the US, which already dominates it. So Australia is key with all these other relationships with all these other nations around the SEA/Pacific region. Australia's alliance is heavily focused around the USN and USMC, much like our fighting in WW2 was.
AUKUS isn't just about having the US build Australia some submarines. Its about Australia contributing to US supply chain and submarine production, maintenance and deployment and operation. The least interesting thing about it, is the submarine platform itself.
You can be best friends with someone, they can even be your brother, but if you don't share any interests, don't spend any time together, don't go on the same adventures, don't share the same world view, don't do deals with each other, and don't even live in exotic locations which makes visiting fun and different. It limits the relationship and how much fun you can have. But even then, how do you compare the relationship between two brothers? Probably not really helpful. Its not a zero sum game. Canada's and Australia's relationships are different and independent.
SSN aren't on the table for Canada. One single SSN would consume all of Canada's submarine manpower and likely budget.
downunderblue
Member
The RAN have those same workforce challenges so one could just question why we didn't swap the Baracuda for the Suffren, but lets not go there ...
downunderblue
Member
This is oh so true.
downunderblue
Member
This was part of my point though. Why should Canada only procure a 'greenish-brown' water navy when their interests (and collective responsibility) are broader? Shouldnt they regularly patrol (as a deterant) the Western Pacific, Sea of Japan in a similar way to their allies, just as they should commit to NATO AND the North?
So much of the sub selection and "Our North, Strong and Free: A Renewed Vision for Canada’s Defence" is around, you guessed it, 'the North' and preoccupation with the potential existing and future threat from the Russian Northern Fleet into Canadian territorial waters (esp as the ice recedes). I'd suggest some in Ottawa seem to be fixed on it at the expense of other logical threats and interests, as if you only look for burlars coming through the front gate. It's clearly cheaper too.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Not really. Apart from NORAD being a joint US-Canadian defence command which seen US combat forces operate in Canadian airspace, as well as RCAF fighters operating in US airspace, with both sides taking responsibility to provide intercept and if necessary engagement of hostiles. There is also the Canadian Exemption to the US ITAR requirements. In other words, some of the defence kit which other countries including Australia and the UK need to get approval for, before either the gov't or specific defence companies can order, can be ordered by Canada and/or Canadian defence firms without having to get prior approval.
There are also a number of gov't to gov't rules and agreements in place between the US and Canada which regulate trade including the ability to work and/or operate a business, travel between the two countries, and so on. In many instances, how 'normal' US rules apply to non-citizens is rather different for Canadians. That also is not even getting into the issue with communities like Derby Line, VT in the US and Stanstead, Quebec in Canada. Depending on where one is within the library in town, a patron might be in either the US or Canada...
I'm not saying that Canada doesn't have agreements and understandings. And that they aren't perhaps potentially superior.
My point is more zen tree in the forest/one hand clapping like. What is the point or advantage, if they are never used by Canada or if they provide no advantage to the US. Or worse, they are used as an excuse to underfund and under prioritize defence funding, and if because of their seen absolute certainty, they are perhaps warp their world view and are used to internal political gain.
Does Canada operate any unique or special Canada only equipment from the US? Does Canada exemption to ITAR provide it with some magical capabilities Australia doesn't possess? Or is it just different? As an Australian, I don't look at Canada's force structure, equipment, training, command and control etc, and think gee, wish we could have that. Or wow, wish we could have/do that. Doesn't it also inhibit Canadian re-exporting of that same equipment? In theory its a stronger arrangement, but due to lack of interest domestically within Canada, it doesn't seem to do anything particularly amazing with it, particularly recently. In fact Canada seems pretty dependent on the US for a lot of even domestic capabilities a lot of other nations would keep sovereign and independent.
Even the industrial advantage is IMO underutilized. Often Canadian firms seem to have a aggressive or perhaps even hostile relationship with US firms. Our distance and relationship is both a disadvantage and an advantage. Clearly it still works, Canada had much deeper share of the F-35 and similar programs.
Australia doesn't need any help to intercept any aircraft in its airspace, no one can basically fly aircraft that far. Im not sure Australia would be cool with the US operating un-restricted, as that would give us less of a say, and less in the conversations at the table. The US is basing a rotational squadron of B-52 out of Australia, not because it needs to defend Australia with B52s, but because it helps the US aims across Asia, particularly if Guam and bases in Korea and Japan are under attack. 2000 US marines are in Darwin, not to repel an imminent invasion of Darwin and as a garrison, but to forward deploy to regions to the north with Australian forces, or more realistically train and operate with allies and friendlies across the region, we enable them. Heck they are likely to deploy on Australian enablers at short notice, they will be coming with us, rather than us with them.
The fact that Australia does require approval, continually engages with congress and internal US politics to secure Australian goals and interests. Its not really a bug, its a feature.
But also I'm no expert on Canada. I find Canada endlessly baffling and confusing. They are an interesting benchmark for Australia to look at, but at this stage, two countries that would seem on the surface to be very similar, are in fact completely different. Their armed forces, strategic outlook, US relationship, alliances, priorities seem poles apart.
Even say the frigate program, which both selected the Type26, which seemed to have similar aims, seems to be heading off in wildly different directions. Amphibious ships, support ships, Mine capability, submarines, surface combatants all super different.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Aren’t the UK and Australia exempt from ITAR as of the 1st of September this year?
Underway
Active Member
My comment was restricted to only AUKUS and the point that AUKUS does not equate to 5 Eyes, or all the other defence and inelligence agreements. Which is to say AUKUS isn't the be all and end all for everyone involved and everyone not involved.Pretty difficult to verify as this is a highly confidential topic. I don't think it is helpful to say one is better, deeper or broader. You would have to be an expert in both relationships. I'm not sure anyone is, any view would have to be a specific viewpoint and essentially an opinion.
I would point out that Australia has special relationships with the US, and is frequently the only country outside of the US that operates certain equipment, that embeds deeply in US security, intelligence and military functions and actively participates in all sort clandestine stuff all over the world, and has done so for a very long time. Like overthrowing governments in South America. Most people don't know about it because that's the point.
Declassified documents show Australia assisted CIA in coup against Chile’s Salvador Allende
Former Liberal PM Billy McMahon approved spy agency request to conduct covert operations in Chile, a move later overturned by Gough Whitlam
While Canada and the US do NORAD things, Australia and the US do special AUUS things. Usually in the Pacific..
- The E7 program literally integrates naval, air and space, commands and controls US and allied assets in combat missions.
- The Mk48 ADCAP CBASS involved huge amounts of submarine signature sharing between Australia and the US. A key part is said that Australia has signatures that the US wanted but didn't have.
- AUKUS involves technology transfers around very closely guarded nuclear secrets as well as sensor, computing, propulsion, etc.
- Growlers signal capabilities and databases are not widely shared, even amongst five eyes.
Breaking Barriers: First Australian Deputy Commander arrives at PACAF
As PACAF’s Australian Deputy Commander, or DCOM as known in Air Force vernacular, Air Vice-Marshal Newman works alongside U.S. Air Force DCOM counterpart, Lt. Gen. James Jacobson, to assist managementwww.pacaf.af.mil
While Australia isn't in NATO, we don't have to share our US relationship with a bunch of others. We can have an intimate twosome by ourselves.
Canada, while in the club, often does weird things, and it seems, Canada often assumes the US will always agree with them or forgive them. Australia has to work hard for the US love, it is a tough and vigorous love. Australia's history with the UK, means it has abandonment issues.
Case in point, and because I am old and remember too much..
Spying chain's cover blown - New Zealand News - NZ Herald
Latest breaking news articles, photos, video, blogs, reviews, analysis, opinion and reader comment from New Zealand and around the World - NZ Herald
Nice.
Canada definitely has an amazing opportunity to partner with the US. But Canada, with limited often old, out of date, sometimes non-US equipment, in limited conflicts, and Canada not being far from the US, means that the geography of Canada is accessible to much the same way as it is from the US. Canada also sees, like many NATO nations, NATO being strong and endlessly unifying.
Canada doesn't operate Aegis ships, doesn't operate Virginia combat systems, doesn't have dedicated AWACs type capability which the US desperately needs, doesn't have EW fighters/Super hornets, doesn't have modern weapons like LRASM and SM6, doesn't have 70 F-35 fighters in operation and largest non-US user, doesn't seem to have a hypersonics program, doesn't have strong expeditionary capability, doesn't have strong enablers for that, is located right next to the CONUS, so doesn't really provide advantage and key points for Sub communication, sat tracking, forward deploying of forces and resources. Australia is also influential in its region, where as Canada's region is basically the US, which already dominates it. So Australia is key with all these other relationships with all these other nations around the SEA/Pacific region. Australia's alliance is heavily focused around the USN and USMC, much like our fighting in WW2 was.
AUKUS isn't just about having the US build Australia some submarines. Its about Australia contributing to US supply chain and submarine production, maintenance and deployment and operation. The least interesting thing about it, is the submarine platform itself.
You can be best friends with someone, they can even be your brother, but if you don't share any interests, don't spend any time together, don't go on the same adventures, don't share the same world view, don't do deals with each other, and don't even live in exotic locations which makes visiting fun and different. It limits the relationship and how much fun you can have. But even then, how do you compare the relationship between two brothers? Probably not really helpful. Its not a zero sum game. Canada's and Australia's relationships are different and independent.
Embarrassing to not be included in the discussion for sure from a diplomatic point of view (and not even being aware of it even moreso). Devastating to our relationships no.
Underway
Active Member
Canada isn't exempt from ITAR. We just have an excellerated process or are joint owners of some ITAR tech (lot of sonar stuff for example).
3 in 4 Canadians show support for defence spending on new submarines, Nanos survey shows
Three in four Canadians support defence spending on new submarines, according to a new survey from Nanos Research and CTV News.
Public opinion shifts are happening for defence. Maybe us grumpy internet warriors need to start adjusting our aim when complaining about public opinion on procurement! All the recent airforce purchases when off without a hitch (P8, Reapers and now I expect Wedgetail as well) or even barely a complaint from the public.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
It was my understanding that for some items which ITAR normally would apply does not to Canada, or that Canada was already granted ITAR approval and therefore did not have to seek it for every purchase. It has also been my understanding that what items Canada has an exemption for, or prior approval, has changed from time to time with the list sometimes expanding or contracting. IIRC one of the reasons why the list has sometimes shrunk is that apparently there has been occasion where US kit ended up getting re-exported from Canada to a third party which the US would not have approved.Canada isn't exempt from ITAR. We just have an excellerated process or are joint owners of some ITAR tech (lot of sonar stuff for example).
3 in 4 Canadians show support for defence spending on new submarines, Nanos survey shows
Three in four Canadians support defence spending on new submarines, according to a new survey from Nanos Research and CTV News.www.ctvnews.ca
Public opinion shifts are happening for defence. Maybe us grumpy internet warriors need to start adjusting our aim when complaining about public opinion on procurement! All the recent airforce purchases when off without a hitch (P8, Reapers and now I expect Wedgetail as well) or even barely a complaint from the public.
Not exempt from the whole thing; but with the situation reversed. Previously, everything not exempt had to be individually approved. Now, only those things which are listed as non exempt have to be individually approved; there is, effectively, blanket approval for everything else.
Underway
Active Member
You are technically correct. But it's not full access which it seemed like you were pointing at originally, and certainly other allies have similar arrangements.
I was vague on purpose as I didn't want to get into the nitty gritty of all the various ways and means.
AUKUS is a bit of an odd thing. It isn't just about platforms, its about industrial capacity and technologies for systems. I think Australia and US fit quite nicely with AUKUS, its a bit more complicated when it comes to the UK. Rumor has it the only reason the UK is in it, is that the UK (Boris) didn't want to be left out of an agreement between the US and AU, particularly industrially. Neither Australia or the US minded, and as a third party they can both get along with.
I don't think AUKUS is a good fit for Canada at least as it is now. There is no need to join it. Canada isn't being left out of anything. Many of the benefits that Australia is seeking through AUKUS about manufacturing and production, Canada already has through other means with the US, or in the UK, the UK already has being a bigger nation.
I don't think its embarrassing to be left out. Same with NZ. As you mentioned, its not about replicating 5 eyes. Neither Canada nor NZ are looking at nuclear submarines, and the rest of the technology sharing just piled on, and then it became a media opportunity. Both NZ and Canada have great relationships with AUKUS members.
Getting back to the Canadian Navy. I think Canada will have to assess some local capability for production of so many submarines. Korea is looking for a strong partnership with a yard in North America. Any Japanese offering will have to be locally produced, because Japan buys all the submarines it can produce and selling one, would mean a reduction in a capability they are trying to desperately expand.
Which is a big issue. As we get closer to conflict, spare capacity and logistical sourcing and ordering of complex equipment is getting harder and takes longer. Being reliant on US supplies lines is perhaps not ideal. You want to be compatible with US munitions and systems, but if it comes to high intensity peer war, the US is going to need to supply itself first.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
For some reason I was thinking that AUKUS started the other way around.
Australia enquired with the UK regarding purchasing/building SSN’s, but the UK then needed the US to sign off due to the terms of their 1958 MDP that allowed the sale of an S5W reactor that went in HMS Dreadnought.
Australia enquired with the UK regarding purchasing/building SSN’s, but the UK then needed the US to sign off due to the terms of their 1958 MDP that allowed the sale of an S5W reactor that went in HMS Dreadnought.