First time caller, longtime listener. I appreciated the article, which I read after the conclusion of the NATO summit.
The selection of TKMS for the sub program was, in my opinion, the right choice and it was evidently well-received at the summit and allied capitals. Not only does it let us join what is now a trilateral bloc for the production and sustainment of the platform, but it opens an avenue for Canada to meaningfully contribute to its future development and grow our capabilities in, arguably, *the* key domain for our security and prosperity.
What's absent from the public-facing rationale for the sub program is the very basic fact that with limited effort, an adversary could put out key sea lines of communication (SLOC) at risk and bring our global trade to a screeching halt. We need complete and persistent surface- and sub-surface domain awareness for our key SLOC and their approaches and the ability to credibly protect them. We don't have to worry about unfriendly major surface combatants lurking off our coasts, but sub-launched mobile mines and UUVs (especially XLUUVs and their motherships, which may appear to benign fishing vessels) are going to be a critical threat.
The selection of the Saab GlobalEye as the new pooled NATO AWACS platform is simultaneously a good choice for the alliance and offers a platform with lower unit and operating costs than an E-7 and short(er) runway requirements. This could mean that the Alliance can ultimately obtain and deploy a larger fleet more frequently and allow for more flexible basing. The selection also validates Canada's selection of the platform and begins to grow industrial opportunities for Canada.
Solid overview. Can't wait to hear about the DSRB.
Thanks Louis. I'm also curious to hear more.
I always enjoy reading your analysis of our current situation in this always changing geopolitical climate.
That's very kind. I'm glad you enjoy my work.
I’ve restacked your article as I find it fits with a lot of my own work. I’m happy to share your voice to others that would appreciate it.
Great article. Nice one Hawk... big week in defence!
Thanks Thatch. Hope you're keeping well!
First time caller, longtime listener. I appreciated the article, which I read after the conclusion of the NATO summit.
The selection of TKMS for the sub program was, in my opinion, the right choice and it was evidently well-received at the summit and allied capitals. Not only does it let us join what is now a trilateral bloc for the production and sustainment of the platform, but it opens an avenue for Canada to meaningfully contribute to its future development and grow our capabilities in, arguably, *the* key domain for our security and prosperity.
What's absent from the public-facing rationale for the sub program is the very basic fact that with limited effort, an adversary could put out key sea lines of communication (SLOC) at risk and bring our global trade to a screeching halt. We need complete and persistent surface- and sub-surface domain awareness for our key SLOC and their approaches and the ability to credibly protect them. We don't have to worry about unfriendly major surface combatants lurking off our coasts, but sub-launched mobile mines and UUVs (especially XLUUVs and their motherships, which may appear to benign fishing vessels) are going to be a critical threat.
The selection of the Saab GlobalEye as the new pooled NATO AWACS platform is simultaneously a good choice for the alliance and offers a platform with lower unit and operating costs than an E-7 and short(er) runway requirements. This could mean that the Alliance can ultimately obtain and deploy a larger fleet more frequently and allow for more flexible basing. The selection also validates Canada's selection of the platform and begins to grow industrial opportunities for Canada.
Hi,
Good article. Any views on the post summit scenery?