Status on Victoria-class Submarines?

[Swampbuggy]

The US is and will continue to be Canada's largest trading partner and most important ally.  We share the top half of the continent and that's not going to change.  Getting our knickers in a knot and pushing back against Trump will only hurt ourselves.  We should stay the current course.  Continue to push and argue for open trade and close cooperation between our countries and use strategic and proportional tarrifs in response to Trumps actions which put the maximum pressure on those members of the US Congress and Senate who can influence Trump most. 

Trump is a temporary phenomenon...8 years is his maximum shelf life, but we'll be neighbours as long as we both exist.  Keep it calm and polite but firm.  We're a wealthy country and can weather this Trump storm even if it hurts.  When he's gone we'll face the challenges that the next US leader poses for us.

I know and I hate all this tension between the two. But, I think giving them the idea that we aren’t afraid to move forward with procurement that doesn’t involve their defence firms, may give them pause. If Lockheed suddenly finds itself shut out of multiple billions of dollars in Canadian defence procurement, maybe their bigwigs start shaking some trees and get Trump to listen to reason. Unfortunately the only way we may be able to get our point across is to hit them in the pocketbook. I’m not a big fan of walking away from our neighbours, but it may be time to step up our game a little. Besides, in the case of the Navantia bid for CSC, we’d be tightening our bonds with Australia and I think that’s a worthy goal too.

 

[Rifleman62]

Do you think Swampbuggy that Canada, alone, can defend itself? Do you think the US has confidence that Canada, alone, could defend itself?

We are a buffer state. The US needs to defend Canada, to enhance the defence of the continental US.  Canada does not see the need to defend itself, so the US does it.

Canada and the G7 has been under the protective wing of the US since 1945, funded by the US taxpayer.

Now if Canada wanted to be in the position to have a credible defence, the government now and the future would spend big Cdn taxpayer bucks procuring equipment and raising soldiers, sailors and airmen. And, it would buy equipment etc offshore even, without setting up new industries such as shipyards.

When that happens, and the US becomes confident in our ability, then you can speak about walking away from our US neighbours.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Do you think Swampbuggy that Canada, alone, can defend itself? Do you think the US has confidence that Canada, alone, could defend itself?

We are a buffer state. The US needs to defend Canada, to enhance the defence of the continental US.  Canada does not see the need to defend itself, so the US does it.

Canada and the G7 has been under the protective wing of the US since 1945, funded by the US taxpayer.

Now if Canada wanted to be in the position to have a credible defence, the government now and the future would spend big Cdn taxpayer bucks procuring equipment and raising soldiers, sailors and airmen. And, it would buy equipment etc offshore even, without setting up new industries such as shipyards.

When that happens, and the US becomes confident in our ability, then you can speak about walking away from our US neighbours.

Whoa, whoa, whoa!! If you reread my comments you’ll see that I said we “shouldn’t count on the US”, and that we should find a way to send our message effectively, and maybe that’s by exploring other ways/sources of procuring equipment. Furthermore, Canada isn’t alone regardless of the what takes place vis a vis America, unless you think NATO washes its hands of us over a North American trade war, particularly when the President has gone out of his way to alienate them too. It’s the US that’s embracing isolationism, not the rest of the G7 or NATO. Regardless, Trump is right that the other nations should start pulling their own weight and we can start doing that, even if it means buying our goods elsewhere. IMHO

 

[CBH99]

I agree with Swampbuggy -- a few big contracts going to European firms, and not the likes of Boeing or Lockheed Martin, and you'll some some massive pressure from within their military industrial complex to have better trading relations.  We can't even fathom, let alone underestimate, the amount of power their military industrial complex has in the halls of Washington. 

They can, and I'll passively and carefully suggest already have, had a big influence on what countries the US goes to WAR with.  That's how much power they have. 

They spread jobs all over the country, so a lost contract is sure to effect people in every state.  This is done very strategically, and wields them an unfair & unGodly amount of power in places where they shouldn't have any.


88 Rafale jets ordered instead of the F-35?  A CSC accepted bid in favour of European firms that shuts out a lot of American industry?  An AD system from Israel/Europe, instead of a US firm?  European missiles for future CSC instead of American missiles, to go with the European ships?

Just one or two of those contracts going to Europe due to Trump's souring of relations would have a MASSIVE lobby in Washington putting a MASSIVE amount of pressure on Trump to fix things. 


**I read somewhere recently an article written by a senior American officer, similar to recent articles posted on these forums, about how spending more $$ on the American military doesn't actually equate to a better fighting force.  There is so much waste inside the Pentagon that any massive injections of cash actually have a very minimal affect on improving the military's readiness, due to a huge chunk of it going to the military industrial complex.  Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop Grumming, and 2 shipyards effectively ate about 30% of the DOD budget every year, and that budget is now approx. $700B all in. 

These companies don't want to miss out on contracts and big business, and they won't let many slip through their fingers before they put their foot down in Washington.

 

[YZT580]

I agree with Swampbuggy -- a few big contracts going to European firms, and not the likes of Boeing or Lockheed Martin, and you'll some some massive pressure from within their military industrial complex to have better trading relations.  We can't even fathom, let alone underestimate, the amount of power their military industrial complex has in the halls of Washington. 

quote]  I wouldn't bet on it.  If the military has so much influence why is it that we are buying used Australian F18's?
The CS100 issue with Boeing demonstrated that Boeing military couldn't even pressure Boeing corporate to change its mind.

For decades both ourselves and continental Europe of been nothing but leeches sucking as much cash and support from the US as we can get away with.  And then we bitch because someone has finally called us out on it.  Trump spelled it out when he started.  2% for defence.  Put up or shut up.  We didn't and now he has clamped down on trade.  Cause and effect?  Quite possibly.

 

[CBH99]

I agree with you wholeheartedly, we get by on the bare minimum & the only time we seemed to take defense seriously was during Afghanistan.  (Not getting political, but during those years we did receive new C-130J, C-17, Leopard 2, LAV 6.0 order, TAPV order, CH-147 order, 2000+ truck order near the end, and lots of temporary kit for deployment, etc)

I don't disagree at all that we've been leaches.  One could also argue though that most of the military action undertaken by Canada & Europe has been in support of US wars, but that's a discussion for another thread.


To respond to what you said - I believe it's because 18 aircraft just didn't matter enough.  It wasn't a huge order, and the production line for Super Hornets just keeps getting longer & longer as every year the US Navy orders more & more.  Even Congress adds more aircraft to the aircraft on order, both meeting & exceeding the requests in the Unfunded Priorities List each year.  (You want 16 additional Super Hornets on-top of your current order?  Here, have 18 instead!)

So 18 Super Hornets doesn't really matter a ton when you have 25+ aircraft on order every year, and have an order list several years long as it is. 

If that order was 88 Super Hornets, all of a sudden being turned into 88 Rafale - then I think it would have been a different story.

Also, Boeing shot themselves in the foot on the commercial side with that hissy fit.  I hope some advisors lost their jobs.  They very easily could have partnered with Bombardier & built the aircraft under license, since that was a big chunk of their argument. 

Instead, Airbus comes in and partners with Bombardier, and builds the aircraft at their plant in the US - effectively curtailing Boeing's whole effort, when Boeing could have easily just done that in the first place. 

So they lost the sale of 18 Super Hornets, and lost the potential sale of the CS100 to several commercial airlines, all because the top brass didn't have the cognitive focus to think about their options before flapping their gums.  Poor business decisions on their part, all around.

 

[Karel Doorman]

This might be of interest too,for a possible replacement(when time comes,for the Victoria's),as known,there are a few Navies in NATO that require a sub(DE)which can be deployed "worldwide",and the Dutch Navy is one of them(3)besides,Canada and Australia.

exciting news for us the proposed design from Damen/Saab has been revealed,for the Walrus replacement. 8)

Saab-Damen presents design of the replacement Walrus-class class submarine

http://nlnavy.damen.com/saab-damen-presents-design-replacement-walrus-class-submarine/

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

The design would likely need to be stretched to improve endurance, would it not?

 

[Karel Doorman]

The design would likely need to be stretched to improve endurance, would it not?

Yes,it will be(from what i heard) about 70-75 mtrs long.And about 3000 tonns ,diameter 8 meters.Boat will have 2 decks.crewsize will be between 34-42.6 Torpedo tubes(0.53 meter) and 1 Multi Mission Lock(1.5 meter )so 7 tubes.The Multi Mission Lock is a special tube(A-26 has it too),will be used to launch drones,divers,special ops,etc,while moving or when resting on the sea bottem.What is not known yet,is the fact wheteher it will be a single hull or double hull(wich the Walrus has).Has to be able to at least dive as deep as the Walrus can(wich is more then 300 meters)Cost estimates vary between 900 and 1 billion Euros a copy.The RNLN will order 4(if this design is the final and winning design),also in the "race" are DCNS(but probably too big and costly)and TKMS,not much known about those designs,preferred design is the SAAB-DAMEN design.

 

[Dale Denton]

Is there an AIP system in use today that could have to endurance to get us under the ice and further north? What is required to punch through and surface like in the ICEX?

Reading the wiki on AIP and came across this:

Air-independent propulsion is a term normally used in the context of improving the performance of conventionally propelled submarines. However, as an auxiliary power supply, nuclear power falls into the technical definition of AIP. For example, a proposal to use a small 200 kilowatt reactor for auxiliary power -styled by AECL as a "nuclear battery"- could improve the under-ice capability of Canadian submarines.[12][13]

Links:
http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/NB_02.pdf
https://books.google.ca/books?id=UrgWiHhaHVEC&pg=PA363&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Underway]

Is there an AIP system in use today that could have to endurance to get us under the ice and further north?

Yep.  It's called nuclear power.  :nod:

 

[Swampbuggy]

I was under the impression that endurance wasn’t the only reason why a nuclear powered sub was the preferred choice for under ice operations. I believe I read somewhere that it also had something to do with changing out the air onboard the boat in case of a fire, when the submarine isn’t somewhere it can surface?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I was under the impression that endurance wasn’t the only reason why a nuclear powered sub was the preferred choice for under ice operations. I believe I read somewhere that it also had something to do with changing out the air onboard the boat in case of a fire, when the submarine isn’t somewhere it can surface?

That's affirm. As a result of having nuclear reactor on board, Nuke boats are equipped so they can generate their O2, scrub their CO2, and produce their own fresh water in large quantities. All things classic propulsion boats, including those with other forms of AIP have a harder time doing, or can't do at all.

 

[Dale Denton]

Is it possible to strengthen a DE/AIP hull so that it could push through the ice? Howcome a US/UK nuclear sub can do this but ours can't?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Part of it is if something goes wrong, a nuke sub generally has lots of continuous power to draw upon, whereas a AIP equipped DE sub only has a very limited amount of power to call upon. The ice sheet can be quite complex underneath and could trap a sub if they are not careful.

 

[Karel Doorman]

Is it possible to strengthen a DE/AIP hull so that it could push through the ice? Howcome a US/UK nuclear sub can do this but ours can't?

Think it has to do with which material is used to build the sail,but could be wrong(maybe not strenghted/armoured)to do so.

 

[Good2Golf]

Is it possible to strengthen a DE/AIP hull so that it could push through the ice? Howcome a US/UK nuclear sub can do this but ours can't?

Because of the 22nd element...

 

[Swampbuggy]

So, really, if Canada were to take a serious interest and want to be able to assert our sovereignty over the Arctic, it leaves the nation with 2 very expensive options. Either we bite the bullet and go all in on SSN’s, including developing a training system for nuclear sailors or we seed the Arctic Ocean with hydrophones, forward deploy MPA’s all over and have sufficient quantities of AIP D-E SSK’s to run picket at key entry and exit points. I’d almost think the SSN purchase would be more economical and useful. That’s a tough sell to politicians, flower children and taxpayers, though.

 

[Karel Doorman]

So, really, if Canada were to take a serious interest and want to be able to assert our sovereignty over the Arctic, it leaves the nation with 2 very expensive options. Either we bite the bullet and go all in on SSN’s, including developing a training system for nuclear sailors or we seed the Arctic Ocean with hydrophones, forward deploy MPA’s all over and have sufficient quantities of AIP D-E SSK’s to run picket at key entry and exit points. I’d almost think the SSN purchase would be more economical and useful. That’s a tough sell to politicians, flower children and taxpayers, though.

Well i'm not Canadian,but from what i heard,SSN will never happen.So what should happen(in my humble opinion)is that Canada should(really)buy 8 new subs(4 on east coast and 4 an west coast),but Canada/RCN will be lucky if they get 4 replacements when the time has come to buy/build new ones.

 

[Dale Denton]

I can understand the publics attitude towards nuclear back when the Canada-class was being considered, as Chernobyl was fresh in their memories. Maybe public attitudes have changed slightly, if people were educated that we have Trump/USN acting as a bodyguard of our own territory.

I can't even imagine how things would've been different if we bought 6 French/UK SSNs in the early 90s...