Still not sure if the Germans will offer VLS cells, I assume not but I could be wrong. Receiving 4 KSS-III by 2035 would literally replace the current fleet and that is very attractive. But what about the stealth and AIP capabilities of the Type 212CD/E? How heavy should that count in the balance? 41 vs 21 days is a big difference... (if those numbers are accurate)
Endurance figures are a bit useless as comparisons to each other without accompanying information to specify it. Endurance at what speed, with how many crew, on what type of power, etc. I have seen the Type 212CD listed as everything from 14 days up to 41 days, so I find any claims either way regarding the Germans and Koreans to be suspect. Ultimately it is for the RCN to decide and short listing both designs seems to indicate that both designs have more than acceptable endurance. One would suspect that the KSS-III is not that far behind in endurance, especially when it is a substantially larger vessel.
Is there any particular reason why Canada is seeking VLS/Tomahawk launched strike capability?
Canada has never seemed particularly interested in long range strike from aircraft or surface ships. Canada has not acquired LRASM or TLAM, and could easily do so. Canada also doesn't seem to have other types of long range munitions like JASSM o r JASSM-ER. Is there any reason why they haven't?
What are they intending to use it against? Where do they expect their subs to operate?
Our F-35 procurement includes $2.5B in associated weapons alongside the aircraft themselves, although it is to be seen if this includes stand off capability or anti-shipping munitions as described. Our lacklustre defence procurement and budgeting for many decades has precluded even basic capabilities, let alone excess capabilities like stand off attack munitions. Canada is interested in these sorts of long range strike capabilities due to the deterrence value and strategic options they provide to both the Military and Government at large. The RCN has been interested in the Tomahawk aboard the River class destroyers for quite sometime, there is rumored to be a purchase of HIMARS sometime soon alongside substantial munitions (GMLRS, GMLRS-ER & even PrSM) and the RFI for the Canadian Patrol Submarine Program specifically asks about the designs capability to field land attack and anti-shipping missiles.
With more money and effort going into procurement and planning, there is a want to have the strike capability that these systems offer. It allows Canada to make decisions of its own volition, and not have to beg its allies to undertake these missions on our behalf. It is also a valuable capability Canada can extend to our allies in NATO and worldwide as a whole. The world is becoming increasingly dangerous with Russia and China taking up antagonistic roles against Canada and her allies, having methods to strike back at these forces to support our own operations at home and abroad alongside those of our allies will be vital.
As far as how our submarines will operate, Arctic operations primarily around nautical chokepoints and near the ice sheets seem to be the plan. There will be the capability to do short duration under ice operations, but these are inherently dangerous for a conventional submarine and won't likely be done often. The same substantial endurance required to operate throughout the Arctic archipelago will also be used to deploy these same submarines abroad to Asia and Europe, to support our partners in their respective theatres. Stealthy platforms able to launch massed cruise missile or anti-shipping strikes against our adversaries is a potent deterrent factor against our adversaries.
CCG will move from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to DND. A better fit IMHO.
The Canadian Department of National Defence (DND) has announced the integration of the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) into the defense team.
www.navaltoday.com
It will be up for debate if this is a good change or not, as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans worked incredibly closely with the CCG and will be negatively affected by having their most important sister organization ripped away from them. The CCG acted as the primary transport service for DFO and their Fishery Officers, while the Fisheries Officers alongside RCMP, provided organic law enforcement capabilities that the CCG inherently lacks. DFO merged many of their own vessels into the CCG fleet when both organizations came together in the mid 1990's, so it seems questionable if the CCG will actually give DFO back their vessels, or be forced to work closely with an organization that is now under DND's mandate.
But they have no plan to arm the personnel nor the ships. Mainly to increase the defence budget on paper to satisfy NATO promises IMHO.
From what I've gathered, the Canadian Government cannot count the Canadian Coast Guard towards defence expenditure at this point due to the strict NATO guidelines as to what they consider "defence expenditure." The CCG has historically been a civilian organization and remains so, alongside being heavily unionized. Many within their ranks do not want to join the military or become militarized, so there will be substantial internal issues if that is ever forced upon them. I'd expect a very messy strike action/mass flight of personnel at the least.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm
Defence expenditure is defined by NATO as payments made by a national government (excluding regional, local and municipal authorities) specifically to meet the needs of its armed forces, those of Allies or of the Alliance. For the purposes of this definition, the needs of the Alliance are considered to consist of NATO common funding and NATO-managed trust funds. The list of eligible NATO trust funds is approved by all Allies.
A major component of defence expenditure is payments for Armed Forces financed from within the Ministry of Defence budget. Armed Forces include land, maritime and air forces as well as joint formations, such as Administration and Command, Special Operations Forces, Medical Service, Logistic Command, Space Command, Cyber Command. They might also include parts of other forces such as Ministry of Interior troops, national police forces, coast guards etc. In such cases, expenditure is included only in proportion to the forces that are trained in military tactics, are equipped as a military force, can operate under direct military authority in deployed operations, and can, realistically, be deployed outside national territory in support of a military force. Expenditure on other forces financed through the budgets of ministries other than the Ministry of Defence is also included in defence expenditure.
Retirement pensions made directly by the government to retired military and civilian employees of military departments and for active personnel is included in the NATO defence expenditure definition.
Expenditures for stockpiling of war reserves of finished military equipment or supplies for use directly by the armed forces are included.
www.navalnews.com
