Wow, that was a well written piece! You cogently all the pros and cons of nuclear and non-nuclear submarines, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it, even though I had most of the information already from different sources. I don't think I could have put it together in such a coherent way, and I'm immediately going to share it with some people who I think will enjoy it to.
Very well written & reasoned. now that you have this out of the way, I would be interested in your preferred Submarine between the KSS III2 & the 212cd
Is there any reason why the new deep water port in the Western Arctic and/or the port of Churchill could not be used to resupply the new Canadian submarines to keep them in the Arctic beyond 21 days? That would save them a lot of time travelling to Esquimault or Halifax.
In most circumstances, I think it will be the submarines' total endurance (40 or 50 days) rather than their AIP endurance (21 days) that will be the limiting factor.
I can't think of any reason why Grays Bay can't be set up to refuel (including AIP reagents) and resupply submarines. Though that will be limited to warmer months.
Crew rest might be an issue, though. No matter what we do to make it comfortable, Grays Bay won't be a very exciting place to stop. I imagine once it's been done once or twice, it won't be a stop most submariners look forward to. And if we're routinely doing 2 or 3 50-day at-sea sessions in a row with 1-2 week standoffs in Grays Bay in between -- that's going to get wearing.
Churchill makes no sense to me. It's a long way from the areas we want to patrol in the Arctic and won't be much more interesting than Grays Bay. If you're taking the time to sail there, just go to St. John's and give the crew a proper break.
Have to agree with others in the comment thread - well researched and informative piece. Not sure if it falls into your area of expertise, which I’m guessing is military procurement…as the mission has been refined for our submarine capability, has it not also evolved for the fighter program. While I am not naive enough to think we’ll go it completely alone without the US, I do think we’ve been sold a capability in the F35 program that only partially makes sense. The F35 is an “all weather” capable aircraft, but it is not going to work well in the Arctic on the ground. It wasn’t designed around austere operating environments. While the US is about having stealth capabilities for ingress to contested airspace - we on the other hand need airspace violating aircraft from hostile (well bully, really) nations to know we’re there carrying a loaded gun.
It would be interesting to hear a policy take with an objective position…I’m not a fan of our current procurement of fighter aircraft, and frankly believe strongly that the Gripen E with the Rolls Royce engine would be a far better choice without the need of adding a specialized storage and maintenance facility at every base.
Thanks for sending the link! I’ve just started following you. In truth, your facts add a dimension that I couldn’t possibly articulate…I wish there was a way that mixed the fleet, because I truly believe it meets the primary mission better.
Looks like a huge chunk of our expanded military budget will be required for training and expansion of the maintenance and flight crew. I certainly wish there had been a better bunch of planning prior to this point….
Frankly, I do not see why Canada needs even 4 or 5 submarines to replace the British ones we have now, yet alone to have 12 of these expensive suckers. The $ Billions being spent would better be spent on aircraft and land troops, but more importantly, on drones and sensing equipment, as well as satellites and most of all, cyber-security.
For nearly 2 years, I have been writing for an online conservative publication Dominion Review at https://dominionreview.ca/ and these 4 pieces relate mainly to defense and the current issues with the US:
As Jim Balsillie noted in a podcast “Canada had a very naive view that did not understand that we are security allies of the US but economic rivals”.
China and Russia are not our friends - but WW3 is not going to happen, and certainly not an all out nuclear war with nuclear missiles hitting north America. Submarines can attack the US from any direction, but what is the point firing conventional weapons at Canada or the US?
Unlike WW2 subs which might have a large gun on the forward deck, subs really can only launch torpedoes or missiles - and is Canada going to equip our subs with non-nuclear missiles? I doubt it. Does Canada really need subs to protect shipping when we are not dependent on ships to survive - not for oil, and can likely get what we need from the US and Mexico, or by air?
No other country in the Americas is in a relationship with the US like NORAD, or in NATO, and even the US is not firmly committed to NATO. Canada can work on an ad hoc basis with the US, UK, Japan and other countries without being in a formal alliance like these two organizations.
Canada was in WW1 and WW2 mainly because of Britain. We went to Korea as well because of those two allies, and it was the Cold War. But the Cold War is over and our attachment to the US and UK has changed - our national mindset is to be part of a team with these countries and other allies, but we need to start from square one and examine what we really need, and maybe shed our default mindset of almost always going to war or being permanently allied closely with the US and others.
In effect, our mental position should start with the question "Why shouldn't Canada be largely isolationist, like Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and Chile, since these neighbours in this hemisphere see no need to be involved in Europe, or Asia, or be in a tight defense alliance with the US?
I doubt that Canadians want Canada to be totally removed from helping promote democracy (or opposing China and Russia) as Mexico, which is in NAFTA/USMCA and is tied economically to the fate of the US much as we are. Canada should be supporting Ukraine and other countries against military aggression, though we are not really opposing the US, or Israel, on their violations of international law and using military force where we disagree with its use, and how it is used. Trump threatens war crimes, and Israel has been committing them under Netanyahu, but we do not sanction either, while we sanction Russia.
Trump is waging war on our economy, and we have cards to play - we have hundreds of treaties with the US including NORAD and the use of our air and waters. Spain refuses US use of its airspace and US bases in Spain to fight Iran - Canada has far more power.
If there was a conflict where we should or could have sent troops to fight, it is Ukraine, but we did not do so, nor have other allies, though we did sent our forces to the Baltic to potentially defend them and at least send a message. But we really lack enough troops to send into battle on short notice to really be of much actual help - and changing that would be a far more productive use of money than buying submarines.
Given the economic war the US is waging against us, should be be promising to spend 5% of our GDP on defense, and getting nothing in return? No. Again, apart from cyber-security and espionage, or terrorism, the biggest threat to Canada is the US and our dependence on them treating us with respect and honouring treaties. Because we have refused to use the cars we have on continental defence, we have little power to roll back Trump's tariffs and other actions against us, and Canada has been silent about US aggression and breaking international law out of fear that Trump will retaliate.
Wow, that was a well written piece! You cogently all the pros and cons of nuclear and non-nuclear submarines, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it, even though I had most of the information already from different sources. I don't think I could have put it together in such a coherent way, and I'm immediately going to share it with some people who I think will enjoy it to.
Thanks, Harry. It means a lot that you want to share it with others.
Very well written & reasoned. now that you have this out of the way, I would be interested in your preferred Submarine between the KSS III2 & the 212cd
Is there any reason why the new deep water port in the Western Arctic and/or the port of Churchill could not be used to resupply the new Canadian submarines to keep them in the Arctic beyond 21 days? That would save them a lot of time travelling to Esquimault or Halifax.
In most circumstances, I think it will be the submarines' total endurance (40 or 50 days) rather than their AIP endurance (21 days) that will be the limiting factor.
I can't think of any reason why Grays Bay can't be set up to refuel (including AIP reagents) and resupply submarines. Though that will be limited to warmer months.
Crew rest might be an issue, though. No matter what we do to make it comfortable, Grays Bay won't be a very exciting place to stop. I imagine once it's been done once or twice, it won't be a stop most submariners look forward to. And if we're routinely doing 2 or 3 50-day at-sea sessions in a row with 1-2 week standoffs in Grays Bay in between -- that's going to get wearing.
Churchill makes no sense to me. It's a long way from the areas we want to patrol in the Arctic and won't be much more interesting than Grays Bay. If you're taking the time to sail there, just go to St. John's and give the crew a proper break.
Yes b'y!! Now yer talking!
Have to agree with others in the comment thread - well researched and informative piece. Not sure if it falls into your area of expertise, which I’m guessing is military procurement…as the mission has been refined for our submarine capability, has it not also evolved for the fighter program. While I am not naive enough to think we’ll go it completely alone without the US, I do think we’ve been sold a capability in the F35 program that only partially makes sense. The F35 is an “all weather” capable aircraft, but it is not going to work well in the Arctic on the ground. It wasn’t designed around austere operating environments. While the US is about having stealth capabilities for ingress to contested airspace - we on the other hand need airspace violating aircraft from hostile (well bully, really) nations to know we’re there carrying a loaded gun.
It would be interesting to hear a policy take with an objective position…I’m not a fan of our current procurement of fighter aircraft, and frankly believe strongly that the Gripen E with the Rolls Royce engine would be a far better choice without the need of adding a specialized storage and maintenance facility at every base.
I've written about the fighter procurement a couple times. But you probably won't like my conclusions.
Here's why I don't think the Gripen is an option: https://policyhawk.substack.com/p/the-human-ceiling-on-canadas-air
And here's what I think we should do instead: https://policyhawk.substack.com/p/in-the-f-35-v-gripen-debate-is-there
Thanks for sending the link! I’ve just started following you. In truth, your facts add a dimension that I couldn’t possibly articulate…I wish there was a way that mixed the fleet, because I truly believe it meets the primary mission better.
Looks like a huge chunk of our expanded military budget will be required for training and expansion of the maintenance and flight crew. I certainly wish there had been a better bunch of planning prior to this point….
Great analysis, and thought discussion in the comments.
Frankly, I do not see why Canada needs even 4 or 5 submarines to replace the British ones we have now, yet alone to have 12 of these expensive suckers. The $ Billions being spent would better be spent on aircraft and land troops, but more importantly, on drones and sensing equipment, as well as satellites and most of all, cyber-security.
For nearly 2 years, I have been writing for an online conservative publication Dominion Review at https://dominionreview.ca/ and these 4 pieces relate mainly to defense and the current issues with the US:
https://dominionreview.ca/canada-must-become-transactional-like-trump/
https://dominionreview.ca/should-canada-go-rogue/
https://dominionreview.ca/canada-needs-to-rethink-both-nato-and-norad/
https://dominionreview.ca/canadian-defence-policy-playing-the-percentages/
As Jim Balsillie noted in a podcast “Canada had a very naive view that did not understand that we are security allies of the US but economic rivals”.
China and Russia are not our friends - but WW3 is not going to happen, and certainly not an all out nuclear war with nuclear missiles hitting north America. Submarines can attack the US from any direction, but what is the point firing conventional weapons at Canada or the US?
Unlike WW2 subs which might have a large gun on the forward deck, subs really can only launch torpedoes or missiles - and is Canada going to equip our subs with non-nuclear missiles? I doubt it. Does Canada really need subs to protect shipping when we are not dependent on ships to survive - not for oil, and can likely get what we need from the US and Mexico, or by air?
No other country in the Americas is in a relationship with the US like NORAD, or in NATO, and even the US is not firmly committed to NATO. Canada can work on an ad hoc basis with the US, UK, Japan and other countries without being in a formal alliance like these two organizations.
Canada was in WW1 and WW2 mainly because of Britain. We went to Korea as well because of those two allies, and it was the Cold War. But the Cold War is over and our attachment to the US and UK has changed - our national mindset is to be part of a team with these countries and other allies, but we need to start from square one and examine what we really need, and maybe shed our default mindset of almost always going to war or being permanently allied closely with the US and others.
In effect, our mental position should start with the question "Why shouldn't Canada be largely isolationist, like Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and Chile, since these neighbours in this hemisphere see no need to be involved in Europe, or Asia, or be in a tight defense alliance with the US?
I doubt that Canadians want Canada to be totally removed from helping promote democracy (or opposing China and Russia) as Mexico, which is in NAFTA/USMCA and is tied economically to the fate of the US much as we are. Canada should be supporting Ukraine and other countries against military aggression, though we are not really opposing the US, or Israel, on their violations of international law and using military force where we disagree with its use, and how it is used. Trump threatens war crimes, and Israel has been committing them under Netanyahu, but we do not sanction either, while we sanction Russia.
Trump is waging war on our economy, and we have cards to play - we have hundreds of treaties with the US including NORAD and the use of our air and waters. Spain refuses US use of its airspace and US bases in Spain to fight Iran - Canada has far more power.
If there was a conflict where we should or could have sent troops to fight, it is Ukraine, but we did not do so, nor have other allies, though we did sent our forces to the Baltic to potentially defend them and at least send a message. But we really lack enough troops to send into battle on short notice to really be of much actual help - and changing that would be a far more productive use of money than buying submarines.
Given the economic war the US is waging against us, should be be promising to spend 5% of our GDP on defense, and getting nothing in return? No. Again, apart from cyber-security and espionage, or terrorism, the biggest threat to Canada is the US and our dependence on them treating us with respect and honouring treaties. Because we have refused to use the cars we have on continental defence, we have little power to roll back Trump's tariffs and other actions against us, and Canada has been silent about US aggression and breaking international law out of fear that Trump will retaliate.