Previous  1  2  3  Next

Canada caught off guard by new security pact between U.S., Australia and Britain

   

We should be 'in the market' for some sort of new subs, and if Mulroney hadn't blinked in the late 80s, we'd already have nuclear subs.



That's rich coming from Singh, who has a fair number of members of his own party that want to both abolish the CF AND withdraw from NATO.

   

Nobody's interested in the military...until you need a military. Then they become most concerned about it.

   

Really Canadian Navy?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-sco ... -1.6102598

   

HTG it's not a military alliance like NATO, it's a fucking agreement to share nuclear technology so Australia can build it's own subs.
Seeing as how we don't have or need that ourselves, WTF is all the ranting about?

   

Trudeau is saying we're not in the market for NUCLEAR-POWERED submarines, which according to his government, we're not.

Conventional subs, as long as we buy decent new subs like the U-212/214 AIP subs would suffice, but if history is any indication, we'll get half as many as we need of as older design to save money.

A South Korean 214 boat just fired a ballistic missile from one of its vertical launch tubes the other day, and I'd guess we will need that capability in a decade or two (if not sooner).

   

Because we tried that in the 1980's and the States used some obscure treaty to deny us the reactors to build the subs.

   

We don't need AIP subs. We need boats that float and crew to man with harbors stocked with equipment to maintain them for decades.

We don't need anything fancy but we need serious commitments. Instead we have a leadership that is embroiled in sexual scandals and are literally above the law. Our political leadership has zero backbone and is terrified of a population that see any serious commitment to a military akin to being a warmonger. Meanwhile what military we DO have to create for ourselves we DO sell to amoral warmongering Saudis who have no scruples in using them on their own people in war crimes.

This is what happens when our only options for defense that have been seriously pedaled to us was an unrealistic and chronically overpriced missile defense shield or nothing at all. Nuclear will never fly here in Canada and no one will touch it. Our City class frigates are a great middle ground but at best they are coast guards for 2 of our three wet boarders. The only way for us to feasibly patrol out three wet boarders is long range ASW aircraft like the old PC-3 Orions did and we can use prop driven aircraft for that on the cheap no need for fast attack craft and SUBS. Diesel electric is all we need. A few icebreakers wouldn't hurt either.

   

US defends partnership with UK and Australia after the French blast 'brutal' decision

Sorry France you had 4 years to lay down a hull and you couldn't even do that. Aussies need subs NOW now 20 years from now.

   

Any used subs on eBay?

We don’t have any fancy kit because our PMs never ordered any because Canadians don’t wanna spend on that kinda thing. JT knows that. Steve knew that.

   

We'd better do something. Canada can't afford to sit on the sidelines in regards to such a major international issue. Someone here needs to get the ball rolling and get us into this sooner rather than later.

-J.

   

The AIP subs are diesel-electric subs, they just are capable of staying submerged much longer than the older diesel electric subs.

There's not much in the way of prop engine ASW planes nowadays - the P8 Poseidon, which most of our allies fly, is a converted 737.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_P-8_Poseidon

However, the C-295 (our new SAR plane) comes in an ASW configuration, but it's range is about half of the P-8. Bombardier considered developing a Dash 8 patrol aircraft, but that looks like it was cancelled. I don't know about you, but based on their checkered past, I wouldn't trust Bombardier with $5 billion (the value of the Canadian Multimission Aircraft Project).

If you don't want those planes, the only other option in the free world is the Kawasaki P-1, but I don't think it has certification outside Japan yet.

We're building icebreakers for both the Navy and Coast Guard, and the Harry DeWolf class AOPVs actually look pretty capable - the first of the class is actually doing a circumnavigation of North America right now, sailing through the Arctic, down the West Coast, through the Panama Canal and into the Caribbean.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_DeW ... rol_vessel

After the AORs are done, we're supposed to build the Diefenbaker, a big Class 1 icebreaker that will be almost as capable as the Russian nuclear-powered icebreakers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCGS_John_G._Diefenbaker

   

Throw in some drones an some heavy lift (More C-5 Galaxies) and we should be good.

Problem is the arms industry is always going to pedal the latest and greatest and the media will not be able to tell the difference between an APC and a Tank and neither will your MP.

   

The C-5 stopped production decades ago (I think in the early 90s), and we got one of the last C-17s off the production line before it too closed in 2015. Even if they were still building them, Boeing isn't exactly popular with the Canadian government right now because of the C-series dispute a few years ago. The best we could do is buy the A400M, which isn't much bigger than a C-130.

The US has some long range drones that would certainly work, the only question is whether or not they're willing to sell them to us.

On the second point, you're not wrong, it's so frustrating hearing our frigates referred to as 'battleships' or LAVs called tanks.

   

I don't understand the shift of discussion to heavy lift planes and long range drones. For what purpose would Canada use either? Pack in more refugees per flight?
For ASW a manned fuel efficient prop plane that can stay in the air for a long time is best. Pick up the phone and call AirBus.
For surface threats, well we're gonna know they're coming for days. That's what satellites do.

   

Previous  1  2  3  Next