Yes you need to sit in on this panel and also get on the procurement panel that is in place to hurry this project along. Go from a dozen to a baker’s dozen. Do you know what, I’d like to join as well, what harm could I do? I have Canada’s best interest at heart.
Having lower crew demands by using more automation thus lower number of crew to create more space for things like oxygen and batteries, etc. You could for example potentially make a 3000 ton sub as effective as a larger one and more efficient, but it depends on size of crew relative to the sub. It could also help offset issues in regards recruitment, and a smaller sub is better able to maneuver in shallow water and hide.
Simply put smaller submarines do not have the battery or fuel capacity as larger submarines... And frankly, submarines have smaller crews than frigates and destroyers...
To address the nuclear powered boat issue. There is no spare capacity to build nuclear subs in the west, the Victorias would be long gone before we got our first sub as we are now behind the Aussies who have to wait years as well. Plus we don't have the bases for them, it would be extremely tough politically to base them in Esquimalt or Halifax. We also don't have the Safety discipline in the RCN to run nuclear reactors on ships. We don't have the capacity to build subs. The German offer is interesting because of the offer to train with the German and Norwegians on the same class of sub, that has a lot of benefits. However they are very unlikely to be able to meet Canada's timeline needs unless someone forgo's a hull and even then. The South Korean KS-III can be built to meet or exceed our time line and is a an existing, in the water operational type. It also contains VLS which would offer significant capacity building for Canada. South Korea has shown itself to be extremely flexible in meeting it's customer needs and is experienced enough to be able to weather Canada's flaky procurement and political process. My guess is they can offer industrial offsets, other countries can't/won't. Japan has very capable inwater design. However japan is new to the international defense sales game and cutting their teeth on a unreliable partner like Canada, may go sour very quickly. I was disappointed that RAdm (ret) did not really discuss the challenges in recruiting new submariners and retain the ones we have. Considering his background I felt that was a subject that he should have talked about in more detail.
Then you adopt the RAN's current strategy, purchase used Virginia class SSN's from the USN to fill the initial capability and develop crew and fleet experience. then develop production capacity indigenously.
@@MaxwellAerialPhotography 🤮 We tried that with the Victoria Class -- this will be even worse. And there's a reason Canada wasn't invited/included in USAUS: It's because management is incompetent and leadership is vacuous... Even more than the US/Aus.
@@stevesmodelbuilds5473 Agreed. It will be worse because we would need to run two different training systems - nuclear as well as conventional - for the two different systems. The Victorias will have to be kept online until the new system is past its IOC, which we didn't do with the Victoria class. We stood down the Oberons before the Vics were up and running. This decision led to the loss of a full submariner training system, the results of which we are sill paying for currently.
A nuclear program doesn't happen overnight. It would take decades to build. But pretending 'it's too hard' is insulting. We have one of the largest bases in the world for nuclear engineers. We ALREADY have dump sites for nuclear waste. We have everything but the will to make these submarines nuclear. No, we don't need to build them here. We need to build the reactors here. The South Koreans have expressed interest in a nuclear variant for the KSS-3. If they can do it I find it silly to assume we cannot. We could (and should) partner with them having nuclear submarines in mind. I'm tired of this self flatulating attitude. No wonder nobody wants to join up when everyone's attitude around our military future is so... lazy. If all you see are problems you'll never take steps to solve anything. It would be hard but I bet it would inspire people. Nothing easy inspires anyone.
The RCN is already late maintaining submariner skills and safe practices. They need to start finding other long term exchange positions for junior NCMs not just officers. Get sonar operators and techs sailing on USN subs. Get martechs sailing with German and Norwegian navies. We don't have the capability of maintaining and building the required crews now for the boats we have. Maintaining a training standard and failing people who can't achieve that standard. Finally pay submariners better and recognize the riaks they take just driving the boat out of the harbour let alone operations. If the RCN can do thet they will have a foundation to build on for the new program.
I am utterly flabbergasted that you made through an entire episode and no one raised the possibility of nuclear propulsion. The journey just from Victoria direct to the north pole, is more than 7000km. There's a reason that the Australians scrapped their Attack class conventional subs and made the AUKUS deal for nuclear subs. Similar to Canada, the RAN needs to patrol an enormous territory relative to either their population and infrastructure footprint, or their navy's overall size and capability. Moreover unlike Australia, Canada has a longstanding nuclear power industry, and technical training infrastructure, which could certainly support a nuclear submarine fleet, along with technical assistance and training from the USN next door.
40 years ago we were planning to build our own nuclear subs and now we don't even know how to buy new ones. 40 years ago we concluded that the only platform suitable to patrol our arctic ocean was a nuclear powered submarine so we started the Canada Class Submarine Project, we were going to build up to 10 nuclear powered boats with the help from either France or the UK. Why did we cancel it? Because we have weak politicians who were either bribed or are cowards, we still do. The US used 2 treaties to block our allies from helping us build our own nuclear powered boats, that's right our ally to the south blocked us, they don't want to compete with us in the arctic we would have had to do it alone. Despite having some of the best nuclear scientists in the world, and one of the best nuclear reactor programs in the world, our either bribed or cowardly politicians decided we don't need to have a platform to patrol our sovereign waterways. Had we just gone at it alone right now we would be rolling out most likely our 2nd or 3rd generation nuclear boat that is 100% made in Canada. We're the laughing stock of the world, again, we should be a shipbuilding powerhouse, we can barely build a patrol ship and we aren't even having a discussion about building our own subs this time around. Imagine what the discussion will be like in 40 years time, will it even be in english?
40 years ago, the navy was planning to buy conventional subs. Erik Neilsen asked for a study on nuclear subs and it went from there. There was never any consideration of building these in Canada. The last full submarine construction was done at the MIL Davie yard in Montreal in the 1920s, although the yard provided some sections for US subs in the 1970s. Canada lost the ability to build these systems not through corruption but through normal business decisions. The GoC wasn't buying SSNs, so the industrial capability never developed and what already existed withered away. Having a nuclear industry definitely puts Canada ahead of Australia in ability to manage the industrial base for SSNs, but does not give it the ability to design, from scratch, a small nuclear reactor with the safety record of US designs. Had we persisted in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan had already ordered the USN to permit the Brits to sell us SSNs, but we ran out of cash. People forget the IMF was looking at Canada's books, the ratings agencies had tanked our credit ratings, and there was a massive cut back in spending, beginning under the Conservatives, and carried on by the Liberals. The SSN plan was a missed bullet. There is a strategic rationale for Canadian SSNs, just not a fiscal one.
@@PaulMitchell-d8d It's right in our defence policy "Challenge and Commitment" nuclear subs. We weren't going to be able to build 100% of it in Canada, we were going to use either the Rubis or Trafalgar Class for the hull and we needed help with the reactor. The US used 2 treaties to block both the French and British from helping us with reactor technology. The atomic energy treaty we signed with the US in 1959 and also the US Uk mutual defence agreement signed in 58
The amendment: I attempted to cover this story... back in that day. I was a cub straight out of journo school...and was offered an entry level with two weeks to settle.. in Das Kapital. My Number one chat I sought, was with the British High Commission Naval Attache', Capt Cook...really. The Captain was very welcoming and he along with a tolerant Manchester Guardian Defence analyst and two very grim spooks... in the background. The good Captain was more than pleasant indeed and made me feel at home..exclaiming that in his almost two years in Ottawa... that this was surprisingly, his very first interview by a Canadian writer...(even me, the wee cub)... that showed even a modicum... and that I had just...by one week missed the RN's visit with her brand spakin pride HMS Trafalgar's to the jetty at Halifax. Looking back and knowing now how it all went down... everyone those Brits in that office were more than stoic...considering our heritage together...(My documented Highland family landed on the Newfoundland Station with the RN in 1790. The last time Canada tried to purchase 10-12 Trafalgar Class from the UK...Many people in very high places in the United States government nixed the whole program...by not allowing the UK MOD to transfer American nuclear technology to Canada Ye think?.🤔 Here we are 40 years later. God bless our 4 Royals.
@@RPMZ11 And we should not Allow Canada to have much of our Tech., they are second to last in Equipment purchases/upgrades, and in the Bottom 4 in by GDP spending in NATO, and have been for 20+ years, and since they LEAK tech to China like the Titanic, and since Turdeau is a pathetic socialist POS, we cant TRUST Canada with our best tech., I hope that can change.... but I doubt it. Dont get me wrong, I have served with some Canadian Troops, they are very good, but 22,500 of them? Really? Canada did not have the money nor the Budget to purchase or CREW those boats you speak of, they were blatantly just trying to get the tech., and were justly refused. You may not like it - but there is the truth.
@@KellyBrownlee Sure Part 2 - Canada drops BELOW 1% of GDP in Military spending. While jailing 10,000 MORE citizens for speaking their mind. There is your most likely update.
Nuclear submarines are simply not an option for Canada, not for the foreseeable future. That ‘ship’ has sailed… and we do not have the luxury of time acquire that type of capability.
We always buy what we don't need across all three: Army Navy, and Air. No money for the good stuff and too long getting anything done it never changes.
I dont understand why we dont join with the British and auzies and joining the US in getting LA submarines it would be easer for us because unlike the auzies we have a nuclear industry a bigger economy and we are next store to the US they are dependable and one of the best in the world
LOL We TRUST the Aussies with Nuke Sub Tech, we dont Trust Canada with it. File that under sad but true. Frankly I am a bit upset that Canada will get F 35's. There is a reason NOT to trust Canada with Mil Tech., it gets to China a few months after Canada. Again File it - sad but true.
@@PaulMitchell-d8d Some countries, like Norway are choosing to help thru their tax system to allow parents to be able to afford a stable house hold. That is investing in the future!
Ok, so it's 2024...the first lemon should be at sea trials by 2065 and after it catches fire or takes on water, another few months to sort out the other complexities as in where to put the tampon dispensers and the self vasectomy station. Who needs torpedo tubes anyways. Although, it would be difficult to repeat the abysmal performance of the benighted Vicky's, we could try. By the way, I have nothing but respect for Admiral Norman.
So maybe a mixed new fleet, 6 x Korea KSSIII or Japan Soryu for the west coast and 6x Type 212E or SAAB E on the east coast Gets 1 sub on each coast in a few years, others to follow . . . simplifies crew ramp up issues, cuts acquisition time by at least 50%. Subs nearest their expected AOPS and allies with same boats All subs equipped with same USN internals & weapons to simplify crew mobility. Increases the ILS but still very manageable
Crazy. You have two separate logistics streams to manage instead of a single one. You have to have two different training programmes given the differences between the KSSIII and 212s. You need two sets of trainer systems and subsystems. The notion that we can afford 12 subs (and crew them) already strains imagination. Why add the additional complexity to something that is already at the edge of RCN capability to manage?
@@pablovonyaletown5997 What you propose is impossible. It's a major engineering work to adopt one submarine's combat system to another. Since KSS-III is operational right now while the Type-212CD won't be available for sea trials by Canadian officials until early 2030s(The first one is scheduled to be finished in 2029), you are asking Germans to adopt Korean combat system into 212CD. The whole 12 unit plan is based on pricing quotes by the Korean shipyards that can give fixed pricing and delivery schedule on a bulk order because KSS-III is in service and is operational. Canada cannot afford 12 submarines if it split the order between 2 different types.
@@internationalpiratehere is a good question, is specifying to the builder that we want Canadian combat systems that match the USN a modification that will cost an arm and a leg?
Regarding Canada being a "joke," As an American who has lived in Canada for the past 20 years, I have drawn a similar conclusion. Canada is irrelevant and focused on using mass immigration to super-charge its residential real estate sector which is roughly double the size of any other Western nation as a percentage of the national economy. Halifax, where we raised our 3 children, has transformed to the point where it's almost unrecognizable in terms of both buildings and people. During my local walk (we live downtown) my route takes me around the public garden and through parts of the downtown. I am just if not more likely to hear Punjab, Hindi, Cantonese, or Mandarin than English and I find it incredibly alienating. Although my wife and I have Canadian citizenship, we are returning to New England after our youngest graduates HS in the spring. Our oldest has already left Canada after graduating from Queens, and our younger two children don't see Canada as a long term option. As our oldest wisely noted, "Why would I start a career in a country whose governments at all levels are dedicated to the task of flooding the labour market every years with hundreds of thousands of people, most of which are coming from India and China. Canada is not a country. It's a business..." Judging by Canada's ever declining per-capita GDP, it's a mediocre business at that. I take zero - and I mean zero - joy in saying these things. I invested many years in this country and feel betrayed as I didn't sign up for what so many Canadians apparently believe is acceptable in terms of taking a 2015 population of 35 million Canadians and using mass immigration to bring the number up to 100 million by end of century. As an immigrant myself, I feel betrayed by Canadian complacency, and passivity. I've grown to detest Canadian politeness and occasionally seethe over the fact that so many Canadians define themselves by what they are not, as in "We're not American." Much more to say here, but, you get my point no doubt. I genuinely valued the Canada I came to in 1999. But Canadians have literally destroyed their own country. Context: My political perspectives are slightly left of center. I voted for Trudeau in 2015 and believe climate change is real. I've detested Trudeau and his entire cabinet for years, and am shocked at how little my vapid neighbors here in Halifax think about or discuss Canadian politics. Many believe mass immigration to be a good thing citing Canada's declining birth rate. In fact, the birth rate is in line with most other Western nations, yet nobody except Canada is in the process of using mass immigration to triple their population. Most Canadians I know are unaware of the Century Initiative or the fact that the co-founder is now the Canadian Ambassador to China, or the fact that McKinsey is essentially running Immigration Canada. Canada is an expression of globalism at its worst. On a final note, I have tremendous respect for the men and women who are part of the Canadian military. The sad state of the military is not of their own making. It's a reflection of Canadian values - currently led by a woke, teary former elementary school teacher. The political alternative is a fool of man who deny's climate change is a problem. But I digress.
4:03 canada’s military procurement practices are an international embarrassment … i’m high to have a look to see if you’ve done anything on that…if you haven’t, could you? Same goes for the sequence of events that got us to buying eighty-eight F35…$900,000,000 for each air frame to buy, operate and maintain over its lifetime
Defense isn't cheap... Get over it... The fly away cost for the F-35A is nearer $100 million each, give or take a few million, but staffing, maintaining, and sustaining them will cost much, much more over 40 years. Mind you at a cost that is most likely LESS than keeping the Hornets around for another 40 years. F-35A pilots don't cost anymore in salaries than CF-18 pilots. Ditto with those maintaining and sustaining the fighters... Duh... Of course future armaments will increase in costs with inflation, as are the staff's salaries. Forty years is so far into the future any educated guess, yes a guess, is most likely way off. Heck the government can't even come close for a decade long procurement program, never mind forty years...
Hope we can go hi/lo mix, and cheap out with buncha Orca drone subs. If they ever work right. (Anybody else snicker when they read the XL LUV acronym?)
Unbelievable, a full discussion with three retired Navy Admirals on acquisition of new submarines for the Canadian Navy and no one raised the issue of buying nuclear versus conventional submarines!!! We are our worst enemy. Senior officers serving in Ottawa become too political. Is there any retired or serving senior officers with enough moral courage to provide honest professional military advice and not play the Ottawa political game of skewing their advice to make it acceptable to our politicians? It would be refreshing to have speakers on this forum who are not afraid to rock the boat.
1 A decade or so ago the Liberal Gov sent the Army to Afghanistan in Iltis Jeeps and Green Camo uniforms. Those Jeeps have been slighted for Replacement in 15 years from now , Why? because it takes 10 -15 years to get anything bought or Procured. Latest news Canada bought 30 million worth of sleeping bags for the North that FAIL at keeping soldiers Warm! People who are Elderly will probably never see a new Warship sail , A Submarine Float or Drones in the sky , simple it takes that long. We are sending world war 2 pistols to Ukraine because we do what no other country does best. Shop for scraps and keep what we can operational. Not even Readiness , Operational after hours and hours of maintenance. until the Canadian public wakes up nothing will change the last purchase that really made a BIG difference were the 5 c-17's. Put this in perspective one base in Alaska has more Firepower than our entire , Army , Navy and , Air-force , the f-35's should be on the Tarmac the Buffalo Replacements that have been replaced and painted should be ready to go. Drones should be at their two bases just being Built. The FIRST Supply Ship should at least be CLOSE to launch , last but not least where it she money going to come from for the Artic to Modernize the Radar Stations and the Gov is talking about using AI for what? We don't even have the FGM-148 Javelin shoulder Fired Missiles or ground defenses just the one promised to Ukraine that hasn't even be Delivered yet , I Do we even have a Deep water port Promised? ! am worried people , Canada Deserves better our Men , Women in Uniform Deserve better , not having to worry about their own kit , outdated Antique equipment , I think even the new Patrol ships are taking on water. I would love to see subs in my time , actually the First because no way we could afford 12.
When Jean Chretien said Canada is in the position to not spend too much on defense being adjacent to the USA, so "we" won't... That was his attitude then, and apparently every Canadian's attitude since... You don't and you won't...
"south China Sea" ... WTF? submarines are for local area denial and sovereignty "projection"; no? Force projection away from domestic waters (and support) is a significant task upgrade/escalation. Forgive me, but of course a Navy officer is going to say "having a world class navy is expected of a world class country, and submarines are a component of that". ok ... 1) so too are aircraft carriers, 2) How many non-Navy people would define submarines as critical to their world view ? 3) What would the Navy (or the CAF in general, or the Canadian nation more generally) have to give up to allow the funding of this program ? We get the navy we can afford, or are prepared to afford, given all the other draws on government finances. We have to hope (hope against hope/expectation ?) that the government spends our money wisely. Rather than "insisting" that submarines are Required, we could ask "what else could project our sovereignty ?" what can we achieve with fixed sensor arrays (I'm sure we have some already) ? Of course this is another question we'll only know the "right" answer to many decades in the future. And decisions made now will limit our options in the future ... rebuilding capability is enormously slow and expensive. Can we maintain some capability by sending a cadre to work on allied navies ? Not ideal but many a way to keep some "seed corn" ? Should the subs be based on the East coast ? ... to get the Artic from Vancouver you have to ask American (or Russian ?) permission ... no?
Blimps don't sink💋 Seriously though, I hear yeah. Blimps would be a great filler....anything would be. What we need is permanent hardened... with dispersed Bases, not FOLs... in at least Yellowknife & Iqualiqit.
@@RPMZ11 Blimps could supply and service our vast Northern areas, strengthening our sovereignty -- but the Lieberals aren't interested in sovereignty -- they want lucrative contracts for their corrupt cronies... 🤬
Speaking frankly, there isn't much military equipment or facilities in the FAR NORTH to DETER Russia or China conquering the Arctic archipelago. Nor is there a military sealift vessel to support and supply any Canadian armed forces if Canada chose to fight for their sovereignty. What bothers me is it the same story with two of Canada's largest populated islands, Vancouver and Newfoundland. Even if you flew in the army, and attempted to support and supply with transport planes, that would be difficult to do if the Russians took the airport runways first... Please note Russia did attempt to take a airport runway outside of Kiev just a few years ago... From an outsider, one wonders whether Canada will choose to defend Vancouver, Newfoundland, or any of the FAR NORTH islands of their Arctic archipelago... Apparently the government will only begin to defend Canada when the enemy is within artillery range of Ottawa...
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Wish I could join you guys one time! 🙂
Said no one who didn't sail on the Titanic... 😐
@@stevesmodelbuilds5473 sense made. Zero
That would be amazing!
Yes you need to sit in on this panel and also get on the procurement panel that is in place to hurry this project along. Go from a dozen to a baker’s dozen. Do you know what, I’d like to join as well, what harm could I do? I have Canada’s best interest at heart.
That would be fantastic! M8,...Just think🤔?
You... Nelson, Hood, & Jelicoe.
Having lower crew demands by using more automation thus lower number of crew to create more space for things like oxygen and batteries, etc. You could for example potentially make a 3000 ton sub as effective as a larger one and more efficient, but it depends on size of crew relative to the sub. It could also help offset issues in regards recruitment, and a smaller sub is better able to maneuver in shallow water and hide.
And you trust 'Canada' to do that? 🤨
Simply put smaller submarines do not have the battery or fuel capacity as larger submarines... And frankly, submarines have smaller crews than frigates and destroyers...
To address the nuclear powered boat issue. There is no spare capacity to build nuclear subs in the west, the Victorias would be long gone before we got our first sub as we are now behind the Aussies who have to wait years as well. Plus we don't have the bases for them, it would be extremely tough politically to base them in Esquimalt or Halifax. We also don't have the Safety discipline in the RCN to run nuclear reactors on ships.
We don't have the capacity to build subs. The German offer is interesting because of the offer to train with the German and Norwegians on the same class of sub, that has a lot of benefits. However they are very unlikely to be able to meet Canada's timeline needs unless someone forgo's a hull and even then. The South Korean KS-III can be built to meet or exceed our time line and is a an existing, in the water operational type. It also contains VLS which would offer significant capacity building for Canada. South Korea has shown itself to be extremely flexible in meeting it's customer needs and is experienced enough to be able to weather Canada's flaky procurement and political process. My guess is they can offer industrial offsets, other countries can't/won't. Japan has very capable inwater design. However japan is new to the international defense sales game and cutting their teeth on a unreliable partner like Canada, may go sour very quickly.
I was disappointed that RAdm (ret) did not really discuss the challenges in recruiting new submariners and retain the ones we have. Considering his background I felt that was a subject that he should have talked about in more detail.
Then you adopt the RAN's current strategy, purchase used Virginia class SSN's from the USN to fill the initial capability and develop crew and fleet experience. then develop production capacity indigenously.
@@MaxwellAerialPhotography 🤮 We tried that with the Victoria Class -- this will be even worse. And there's a reason Canada wasn't invited/included in USAUS: It's because management is incompetent and leadership is vacuous... Even more than the US/Aus.
@@MaxwellAerialPhotography You are very much counting chickens before they hatch. It's very likely the Aussies will change their minds yet again.
@@stevesmodelbuilds5473 Agreed. It will be worse because we would need to run two different training systems - nuclear as well as conventional - for the two different systems. The Victorias will have to be kept online until the new system is past its IOC, which we didn't do with the Victoria class. We stood down the Oberons before the Vics were up and running. This decision led to the loss of a full submariner training system, the results of which we are sill paying for currently.
A nuclear program doesn't happen overnight. It would take decades to build. But pretending 'it's too hard' is insulting. We have one of the largest bases in the world for nuclear engineers. We ALREADY have dump sites for nuclear waste. We have everything but the will to make these submarines nuclear. No, we don't need to build them here. We need to build the reactors here. The South Koreans have expressed interest in a nuclear variant for the KSS-3. If they can do it I find it silly to assume we cannot. We could (and should) partner with them having nuclear submarines in mind. I'm tired of this self flatulating attitude. No wonder nobody wants to join up when everyone's attitude around our military future is so... lazy.
If all you see are problems you'll never take steps to solve anything. It would be hard but I bet it would inspire people. Nothing easy inspires anyone.
As a layman this was interesting but a little tame 😊
The RCN is already late maintaining submariner skills and safe practices. They need to start finding other long term exchange positions for junior NCMs not just officers. Get sonar operators and techs sailing on USN subs. Get martechs sailing with German and Norwegian navies. We don't have the capability of maintaining and building the required crews now for the boats we have. Maintaining a training standard and failing people who can't achieve that standard. Finally pay submariners better and recognize the riaks they take just driving the boat out of the harbour let alone operations. If the RCN can do thet they will have a foundation to build on for the new program.
Late? 🤨 More like negligent -- like these three clowns.
I wouldn't be surprised if Korea puts SAMs on their boats. Makes a lot of sense with Rocket man in the north.
I am utterly flabbergasted that you made through an entire episode and no one raised the possibility of nuclear propulsion. The journey just from Victoria direct to the north pole, is more than 7000km. There's a reason that the Australians scrapped their Attack class conventional subs and made the AUKUS deal for nuclear subs. Similar to Canada, the RAN needs to patrol an enormous territory relative to either their population and infrastructure footprint, or their navy's overall size and capability. Moreover unlike Australia, Canada has a longstanding nuclear power industry, and technical training infrastructure, which could certainly support a nuclear submarine fleet, along with technical assistance and training from the USN next door.
Read this for the answer to your question www.navalassoc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Jolin-SSN-costs.pdf
Honestly the current government probably doesn’t know the difference between nuclear powered and nuclear armed
40 years ago we were planning to build our own nuclear subs and now we don't even know how to buy new ones. 40 years ago we concluded that the only platform suitable to patrol our arctic ocean was a nuclear powered submarine so we started the Canada Class Submarine Project, we were going to build up to 10 nuclear powered boats with the help from either France or the UK. Why did we cancel it? Because we have weak politicians who were either bribed or are cowards, we still do. The US used 2 treaties to block our allies from helping us build our own nuclear powered boats, that's right our ally to the south blocked us, they don't want to compete with us in the arctic we would have had to do it alone. Despite having some of the best nuclear scientists in the world, and one of the best nuclear reactor programs in the world, our either bribed or cowardly politicians decided we don't need to have a platform to patrol our sovereign waterways. Had we just gone at it alone right now we would be rolling out most likely our 2nd or 3rd generation nuclear boat that is 100% made in Canada. We're the laughing stock of the world, again, we should be a shipbuilding powerhouse, we can barely build a patrol ship and we aren't even having a discussion about building our own subs this time around. Imagine what the discussion will be like in 40 years time, will it even be in english?
40 years ago, the navy was planning to buy conventional subs. Erik Neilsen asked for a study on nuclear subs and it went from there. There was never any consideration of building these in Canada. The last full submarine construction was done at the MIL Davie yard in Montreal in the 1920s, although the yard provided some sections for US subs in the 1970s. Canada lost the ability to build these systems not through corruption but through normal business decisions. The GoC wasn't buying SSNs, so the industrial capability never developed and what already existed withered away. Having a nuclear industry definitely puts Canada ahead of Australia in ability to manage the industrial base for SSNs, but does not give it the ability to design, from scratch, a small nuclear reactor with the safety record of US designs. Had we persisted in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan had already ordered the USN to permit the Brits to sell us SSNs, but we ran out of cash. People forget the IMF was looking at Canada's books, the ratings agencies had tanked our credit ratings, and there was a massive cut back in spending, beginning under the Conservatives, and carried on by the Liberals. The SSN plan was a missed bullet. There is a strategic rationale for Canadian SSNs, just not a fiscal one.
@@PaulMitchell-d8d It's right in our defence policy "Challenge and Commitment" nuclear subs. We weren't going to be able to build 100% of it in Canada, we were going to use either the Rubis or Trafalgar Class for the hull and we needed help with the reactor. The US used 2 treaties to block both the French and British from helping us with reactor technology. The atomic energy treaty we signed with the US in 1959 and also the US Uk mutual defence agreement signed in 58
@@allannantes8583 Yes I am definitely a person who gets it. Thanks
Yes you are definitely a person who gets it.
@@danlegris387it was not blocked, Reagan gave the go ahead and he stood up to the USN. It was just a case of the tail trying to wave the dog.
Not even a short commentary regarding nuclear powered subs as an option ?
This is only part 1, there will be more in part 2 most likely?
The amendment:
I attempted to cover this story... back in that day.
I was a cub straight out of journo school...and was offered an entry level with two weeks to settle.. in Das Kapital.
My Number one chat I sought, was with the British High Commission Naval Attache', Capt Cook...really.
The Captain was very welcoming and he along with a tolerant Manchester Guardian Defence analyst and two very grim spooks... in the background.
The good Captain was more than pleasant indeed and made me feel at home..exclaiming that in his almost two years in Ottawa... that this was surprisingly, his very first interview by a Canadian writer...(even me, the wee cub)... that showed even a modicum... and that I had just...by one week missed the RN's visit with her brand spakin pride HMS Trafalgar's to the jetty at Halifax.
Looking back and knowing now how it all went down... everyone those Brits in that office were more than stoic...considering our heritage together...(My documented Highland family landed on the Newfoundland Station with the RN in 1790.
The last time Canada tried to purchase 10-12 Trafalgar Class from the UK...Many people in very high places in the United States government nixed the whole program...by not allowing the UK MOD to transfer American nuclear technology to Canada
Ye think?.🤔
Here we are 40 years later.
God bless our 4 Royals.
@@RPMZ11 And we should not Allow Canada to have much of our Tech., they are second to last in Equipment purchases/upgrades, and in the Bottom 4 in by GDP spending in NATO, and have been for 20+ years, and since they LEAK tech to China like the Titanic, and since Turdeau is a pathetic socialist POS, we cant TRUST Canada with our best tech., I hope that can change.... but I doubt it. Dont get me wrong, I have served with some Canadian Troops, they are very good, but 22,500 of them? Really? Canada did not have the money nor the Budget to purchase or CREW those boats you speak of, they were blatantly just trying to get the tech., and were justly refused. You may not like it - but there is the truth.
@@KellyBrownlee Sure Part 2 - Canada drops BELOW 1% of GDP in Military spending. While jailing 10,000 MORE citizens for speaking their mind. There is your most likely update.
Nuclear submarines are simply not an option for Canada, not for the foreseeable future. That ‘ship’ has sailed… and we do not have the luxury of time acquire that type of capability.
We always buy what we don't need across all three: Army Navy, and Air. No money for the good stuff and too long getting anything done it never changes.
I dont understand why we dont join with the British and auzies and joining the US in getting LA submarines it would be easer for us because unlike the auzies we have a nuclear industry a bigger economy and we are next store to the US they are dependable and one of the best in the world
The answer is the USA and/or the UK don't have any interest, or don't want us to have nuclear sub tech/capabilities
LOL We TRUST the Aussies with Nuke Sub Tech, we dont Trust Canada with it. File that under sad but true. Frankly I am a bit upset that Canada will get F 35's. There is a reason NOT to trust Canada with Mil Tech., it gets to China a few months after Canada. Again File it - sad but true.
It's because they don't trust the Turd-o government, so it wasn't invited to join -- and from those idiots, that's saying something.
@@morphkogan8627they need to get over it.
@@morphkogan8627the patent should be expired on that technology after seven years. We do have our own technically to do it ourselves.
Nuclear power. Anything less is foolish especially artic patrol
Stand by for another disaster...
Yes sad but true
Extremely expensive disaster
Canadians not having children is the biggest problem
Canadians being impacted by ridiculous cost of living are choosing to get married and have kids, less.
You mean you're worried about white people not having kids.
Trudeau and the other turban commies are the biggest problem...
A problem for virtually every country on the planet. Not specific to Canada.
@@PaulMitchell-d8d Some countries, like Norway are choosing to help thru their tax system to allow parents to be able to afford a stable house hold. That is investing in the future!
We should be focused on industrializing our North.
We should be focused on defending our North.
@@stevesmodelbuilds5473 defending mindset is stupid
@@stingingmetal9648 Not as stupid as you... 🙄
@@stingingmetal9648what is stupid is having stupid people in positions of power.
@@stingingmetal9648so your plan is to just let China and Russia have their way with us when it comes to our Arctic. WOW.
Why not join AUKUS?
Ok, so it's 2024...the first lemon should be at sea trials by 2065 and after it catches fire or takes on water, another few months to sort out the other complexities as in where to put the tampon dispensers and the self vasectomy station. Who needs torpedo tubes anyways.
Although, it would be difficult to repeat the abysmal performance of the benighted Vicky's, we could try.
By the way, I have nothing but respect for Admiral Norman.
All true.
I hear Russia's looking to move some of its from the Black Sea...
2065 is a big stretch , 2040 - 2045 more feasible.
@@tw8060 The whole idea is unfeasible...
@@stevesmodelbuilds5473don’t hit me with those negative vibs.
So maybe a mixed new fleet, 6 x Korea KSSIII or Japan Soryu for the west coast and 6x Type 212E or SAAB E on the east coast
Gets 1 sub on each coast in a few years, others to follow . . . simplifies crew ramp up issues, cuts acquisition time by at least 50%. Subs nearest their expected AOPS and allies with same boats
All subs equipped with same USN internals & weapons to simplify crew mobility.
Increases the ILS but still very manageable
Crazy. You have two separate logistics streams to manage instead of a single one. You have to have two different training programmes given the differences between the KSSIII and 212s. You need two sets of trainer systems and subsystems. The notion that we can afford 12 subs (and crew them) already strains imagination. Why add the additional complexity to something that is already at the edge of RCN capability to manage?
@@PaulMitchell-d8d same combat systems in both boats. Minimal ILS impact.
@@pablovonyaletown5997 What you propose is impossible. It's a major engineering work to adopt one submarine's combat system to another. Since KSS-III is operational right now while the Type-212CD won't be available for sea trials by Canadian officials until early 2030s(The first one is scheduled to be finished in 2029), you are asking Germans to adopt Korean combat system into 212CD. The whole 12 unit plan is based on pricing quotes by the Korean shipyards that can give fixed pricing and delivery schedule on a bulk order because KSS-III is in service and is operational. Canada cannot afford 12 submarines if it split the order between 2 different types.
@@PaulMitchell-d8d yes just go with one platform.
@@internationalpiratehere is a good question, is specifying to the builder that we want Canadian combat systems that match the USN a modification that will cost an arm and a leg?
no disrespect but Canada is a joke.
A joke in what way?
@@morphkogan8627 Most ways.
It's not disrespect when it's true.
Regarding Canada being a "joke," As an American who has lived in Canada for the past 20 years, I have drawn a similar conclusion. Canada is irrelevant and focused on using mass immigration to super-charge its residential real estate sector which is roughly double the size of any other Western nation as a percentage of the national economy.
Halifax, where we raised our 3 children, has transformed to the point where it's almost unrecognizable in terms of both buildings and people. During my local walk (we live downtown) my route takes me around the public garden and through parts of the downtown. I am just if not more likely to hear Punjab, Hindi, Cantonese, or Mandarin than English and I find it incredibly alienating.
Although my wife and I have Canadian citizenship, we are returning to New England after our youngest graduates HS in the spring. Our oldest has already left Canada after graduating from Queens, and our younger two children don't see Canada as a long term option. As our oldest wisely noted, "Why would I start a career in a country whose governments at all levels are dedicated to the task of flooding the labour market every years with hundreds of thousands of people, most of which are coming from India and China. Canada is not a country. It's a business..." Judging by Canada's ever declining per-capita GDP, it's a mediocre business at that.
I take zero - and I mean zero - joy in saying these things. I invested many years in this country and feel betrayed as I didn't sign up for what so many Canadians apparently believe is acceptable in terms of taking a 2015 population of 35 million Canadians and using mass immigration to bring the number up to 100 million by end of century. As an immigrant myself, I feel betrayed by Canadian complacency, and passivity. I've grown to detest Canadian politeness and occasionally seethe over the fact that so many Canadians define themselves by what they are not, as in "We're not American." Much more to say here, but, you get my point no doubt.
I genuinely valued the Canada I came to in 1999. But Canadians have literally destroyed their own country.
Context: My political perspectives are slightly left of center. I voted for Trudeau in 2015 and believe climate change is real. I've detested Trudeau and his entire cabinet for years, and am shocked at how little my vapid neighbors here in Halifax think about or discuss Canadian politics. Many believe mass immigration to be a good thing citing Canada's declining birth rate. In fact, the birth rate is in line with most other Western nations, yet nobody except Canada is in the process of using mass immigration to triple their population. Most Canadians I know are unaware of the Century Initiative or the fact that the co-founder is now the Canadian Ambassador to China, or the fact that McKinsey is essentially running Immigration Canada. Canada is an expression of globalism at its worst.
On a final note, I have tremendous respect for the men and women who are part of the Canadian military. The sad state of the military is not of their own making. It's a reflection of Canadian values - currently led by a woke, teary former elementary school teacher. The political alternative is a fool of man who deny's climate change is a problem. But I digress.
@@patrickmoan4086hopefully Canadians will heed your advise and drop the WOKE and wake up. It’s never too late to make change and right the ship.
three guests, and no way to tell which one of them has the floor
4:03 canada’s military procurement practices are an international embarrassment … i’m high to have a look to see if you’ve done anything on that…if you haven’t, could you? Same goes for the sequence of events that got us to buying eighty-eight F35…$900,000,000 for each air frame to buy, operate and maintain over its lifetime
Defense isn't cheap... Get over it... The fly away cost for the F-35A is nearer $100 million each, give or take a few million, but staffing, maintaining, and sustaining them will cost much, much more over 40 years. Mind you at a cost that is most likely LESS than keeping the Hornets around for another 40 years. F-35A pilots don't cost anymore in salaries than CF-18 pilots. Ditto with those maintaining and sustaining the fighters... Duh... Of course future armaments will increase in costs with inflation, as are the staff's salaries. Forty years is so far into the future any educated guess, yes a guess, is most likely way off. Heck the government can't even come close for a decade long procurement program, never mind forty years...
Word Salad!
We would be better off to buy 12 NEW Submarines from Sweden.
Hope we can go hi/lo mix, and cheap out with buncha Orca drone subs. If they ever work right. (Anybody else snicker when they read the XL LUV acronym?)
Unbelievable, a full discussion with three retired Navy Admirals on acquisition of new submarines for the Canadian Navy and no one raised the issue of buying nuclear versus conventional submarines!!! We are our worst enemy. Senior officers serving in Ottawa become too political. Is there any retired or serving senior officers with enough moral courage to provide honest professional military advice and not play the Ottawa political game of skewing their advice to make it acceptable to our politicians? It would be refreshing to have speakers on this forum who are not afraid to rock the boat.
They are scared of Russia and China
Well said.
1 A decade or so ago the Liberal Gov sent the Army to Afghanistan in Iltis Jeeps and Green Camo uniforms. Those Jeeps have been slighted for Replacement in 15 years from now , Why? because it takes 10 -15 years to get anything bought or Procured. Latest news Canada bought 30 million worth of sleeping bags for the North that FAIL at keeping soldiers Warm! People who are Elderly will probably never see a new Warship sail , A Submarine Float or Drones in the sky , simple it takes that long. We are sending world war 2 pistols to Ukraine because we do what no other country does best. Shop for scraps and keep what we can operational. Not even Readiness , Operational after hours and hours of maintenance. until the Canadian public wakes up nothing will change the last purchase that really made a BIG difference were the 5 c-17's. Put this in perspective one base in Alaska has more Firepower than our entire , Army , Navy and , Air-force , the f-35's should be on the Tarmac the Buffalo Replacements that have been replaced and painted should be ready to go. Drones should be at their two bases just being Built. The FIRST Supply Ship should at least be CLOSE to launch , last but not least where it she money going to come from for the Artic to Modernize the Radar Stations and the Gov is talking about using AI for what? We don't even have the FGM-148 Javelin shoulder Fired Missiles or ground defenses just the one promised to Ukraine that hasn't even be Delivered yet , I Do we even have a Deep water port Promised? ! am worried people , Canada Deserves better our Men , Women in Uniform Deserve better , not having to worry about their own kit , outdated Antique equipment , I think even the new Patrol ships are taking on water. I would love to see subs in my time , actually the First because no way we could afford 12.
When Jean Chretien said Canada is in the position to not spend too much on defense being adjacent to the USA, so "we" won't... That was his attitude then, and apparently every Canadian's attitude since... You don't and you won't...
Coming in 2048 and sailed by trans robots.
\\\
🇨🇦🫡
"south China Sea" ... WTF? submarines are for local area denial and sovereignty "projection"; no? Force projection away from domestic waters (and support) is a significant task upgrade/escalation.
Forgive me, but of course a Navy officer is going to say "having a world class navy is expected of a world class country, and submarines are a component of that". ok ...
1) so too are aircraft carriers,
2) How many non-Navy people would define submarines as critical to their world view ?
3) What would the Navy (or the CAF in general, or the Canadian nation more generally) have to give up to allow the funding of this program ?
We get the navy we can afford, or are prepared to afford, given all the other draws on government finances. We have to hope (hope against hope/expectation ?) that the government spends our money wisely. Rather than "insisting" that submarines are Required, we could ask "what else could project our sovereignty ?" what can we achieve with fixed sensor arrays (I'm sure we have some already) ?
Of course this is another question we'll only know the "right" answer to many decades in the future. And decisions made now will limit our options in the future ... rebuilding capability is enormously slow and expensive. Can we maintain some capability by sending a cadre to work on allied navies ? Not ideal but many a way to keep some "seed corn" ?
Should the subs be based on the East coast ? ... to get the Artic from Vancouver you have to ask American (or Russian ?) permission ... no?
Definitely up the east cost first.
Better to spend on super-blimps. And I'm not joking.
Well said, Herr Hindenburg.
@@RPMZ11 The Hindenburg wasn't a blimp... and it used hydrogen... 🙄
Blimps don't sink💋
Seriously though, I hear yeah.
Blimps would be a great filler....anything would be.
What we need is permanent hardened... with dispersed Bases, not FOLs... in at least Yellowknife & Iqualiqit.
@@RPMZ11 Blimps could supply and service our vast Northern areas, strengthening our sovereignty -- but the Lieberals aren't interested in sovereignty -- they want lucrative contracts for their corrupt cronies... 🤬
Speaking frankly, there isn't much military equipment or facilities in the FAR NORTH to DETER Russia or China conquering the Arctic archipelago. Nor is there a military sealift vessel to support and supply any Canadian armed forces if Canada chose to fight for their sovereignty. What bothers me is it the same story with two of Canada's largest populated islands, Vancouver and Newfoundland. Even if you flew in the army, and attempted to support and supply with transport planes, that would be difficult to do if the Russians took the airport runways first... Please note Russia did attempt to take a airport runway outside of Kiev just a few years ago... From an outsider, one wonders whether Canada will choose to defend Vancouver, Newfoundland, or any of the FAR NORTH islands of their Arctic archipelago... Apparently the government will only begin to defend Canada when the enemy is within artillery range of Ottawa...
If you don't need the speed to keep up with aircraft carriers and the range to cover the globe, why would you pay for nuclear power.
To operate under the Arctic ice from the east to west and west to east.