Replacing the Subs

[KevinB]

I was thinking The mainland side of the Canso Straight. Deep waters and safely away from population centers but close to Port Hawkesbury airport for SeaHawk escort flights

Fixed it for you

The Cyclone’s won’t be around in 3 years let’s alone 15-20.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Interesting point about infrastructure.

HMC Dockyard Halifax isn't the worlds largest Navy Yard. Shearwater only has 1 jetty.

I wonder, if we got into AUKUS, where we would park the nuke boats ?

Darlington…

 

[Halifax Tar]

Darlington…

I dont think we can put them in Lake Ontario.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The Cyclone’s won’t be around in 3 years let’s alone 15-20.

I love the way you think

 

[Sub Standard]

I agree but nevertheless Seaspan says they have capacity and a trained workforce. Hopefully politics don't take priority over co

Someone should ask them to work backwards from 2035 and ask them how a sub will be built by them and turned over to the RCN by that date. It certainly would not pass the smell test.

They are having issues with the security requirements for the install of the combat suite on JSS, they would loose their minds if they saw what the requirements would be for security on the build of a submarine.

 

[Stoker]

They are having issues with the security requirements for the install of the combat suite on JSS, they would loose their minds if they saw what the requirements would be for security on the build of a submarine.

I have no doubt, I was simply commenting on a quote they made about interest of building them. I would imagine if they went ahead they would have a consortium, experts and a viable plan. Perhaps nothing will come of it. We are going into an election, lots of promises can be made that will extend and derail the procurement.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I dont think we can put them in Lake Ontario.

The Rush-Bagot Treaty of 1817 forbids stationing of warships in the Great Lakes; transiting only, and under very specific circumstances.

Putting Nuke boats at Darlington would be a very clear violation.

 

[MacNav63]

The Rush-Bagot Treaty of 1817 forbids stationing of warships in the Great Lakes; transiting only, and under very specific circumstances.

Putting Nuke boats at Darlington would be a very clear violation.

Would it not also necessitate a rather long and very public surface transit to blue water that seems counterintuitive to the role?

 

[rmc_wannabe]

That too. And the impact on shipping within the St Lawrence. And the high cost of living within the GTA for the crews/support staff.

Bad idea all around, really.

 

[Swampbuggy]

It was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek. I’d love to see how they’d handle security at, say, Iroquois Lock with a nuke boat in transit. Also, it makes any chance of quick response to a perceived threat almost non existent, unless you want it enforcing no wake zones in and out of Cobourg Marina…

 

[rmc_wannabe]

It was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek. I’d love to see how they’d handle security at, say, Iroquois Lock with a nuke boat in transit. Also, it makes any chance of quick response to a perceived threat almost non existent, unless you want it enforcing no wake zones in and out of Cobourg Marina…

Hey now,

Tongue and cheek suggestions can devolve into dangerous policy decisions faster than you think.

Never suggest a throwaway CoA; it may be the one you're forced to execute because the Comd likes it

 

[KevinB]

I love the way you think

Well the S-92 is on the way out the door - if you want parts it better be for S-92A+ components - which as I understand a lot of S-92 (and CH-148) parts (and airframes) aren't.

S-92® Helicopter

With more than 2.2 million fleet flight hours the S-92® helicopter is the industry’s standard for safety and reliability. The S-92 helicopter performs a variety of missions, including offshore energy transportation, search and rescue, Head of State, and airline missions.

www.lockheedmartin.com

*my wife doesn't work in RMS anymore, so I don't have a clue what is or is not compatible - but I know LM-RMS/SIK has wanted Canada to offload the CH-148 for a while.

So I would think there is a good case for both parties (the CAF and LM to work some sort of deal for the MH-60R

MH-60R SEAHAWK® Helicopters

Experience unmatched maritime capabilities with MH-60R SEAHAWK® helicopters. Its mission system ensures actionable knowledge, empowering target engagement.

www.lockheedmartin.com

 

[MacNav63]

It was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek. I’d love to see how they’d handle security at, say, Iroquois Lock with a nuke boat in transit. Also, it makes any chance of quick response to a perceived threat almost non existent, unless you want it enforcing no wake zones in and out of Cobourg Marina…

Maybe check and see what effect Ojibwa is having on marine traffic in Port Burwell...

 

[Underway]

Hey now,

Tongue and cheek suggestions can devolve into dangerous policy decisions faster than you think.

Never suggest a throwaway CoA; it may be the one you're forced to execute because the Comd likes it

I really want my Aliens Invade COA to be selected just once. COA 1: Most dangerous enemy action, COA 2: most likely enemy action, COA 3: aliens invade and we must join forces to fight them

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The Rush-Bagot Treaty of 1817 forbids stationing of warships in the Great Lakes; transiting only, and under very specific circumstances.

Putting Nuke boats at Darlington would be a very clear violation.

But knowing Canada, we would ask for a different weapon system, meaning they are incapable of firing a torpedo for a decade, so the Treaty will not apply during that period.

 

[Underway]

Well the S-92 is on the way out the door - if you want parts it better be for S-92A+ components - which as I understand a lot of S-92 (and CH-148) parts (and airframes) aren't.

S-92® Helicopter

With more than 2.2 million fleet flight hours the S-92® helicopter is the industry’s standard for safety and reliability. The S-92 helicopter performs a variety of missions, including offshore energy transportation, search and rescue, Head of State, and airline missions.

www.lockheedmartin.com

*my wife doesn't work in RMS anymore, so I don't have a clue what is or is not compatible - but I know LM-RMS/SIK has wanted Canada to offload the CH-148 for a while.

So I would think there is a good case for both parties (the CAF and LM to work some sort of deal for the MH-60R

MH-60R SEAHAWK® Helicopters

Experience unmatched maritime capabilities with MH-60R SEAHAWK® helicopters. Its mission system ensures actionable knowledge, empowering target engagement.

www.lockheedmartin.com

Merlin (EH101)would be closer to how we use helicopters, but that's a bigger helo than the Cyclone (about 3 tons?? some MPH person will correct me here). Might not work for current CPF setup but sure would work for both JSS and CSC setup as JSS hangar is gigantic and CSC hangar is designed for Merlin to begin with.

---

I wonder if some of the submarine requirements can be made with UUV's of some sort, or perhaps should be combined with them. Long endurance near ice UUV could work, but given how ice and iceburgs behave it might be risky materiel wise.

 

[suffolkowner]

That's an idea!

Would it be beneficial to put them close to an already operating nuclear reactor? Point Lepreau, New Brunswick ?

operating doesnt really apply to that reactor though unfortunately