Replacing the Subs

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Check the date time on that Naval News release.

 

[GR66]

Check the date time on that Naval News release.

I seriously hope nobody read that article and didn't realize that!

 

[suffolkowner]

I seriously hope nobody read that article and didn't realize that!

these days reality and the imaginary world some people have concocted are difficult to keep separate. April fools is just a dystopian caricature of our everyday existence

 

[Halifax Tar]

Check the date time on that Naval News release.

What did I miss ?

 

[dimsum]

What did I miss ?

 

[YZT580]

but I loved the acronym!

 

[SeaKingTacco]

but I loved the acronym!

It was good…

 

[Underway]

Globe editorial: The unsinkable case for buying submarines

Editorial so may have a paywall depending...

 

[GR66]

Check the date time on that Naval News release.

I do think it's telling however that in a joke piece they found the time to poke a jab at Canada...twice.

 

[Dana381]

I do think it's telling however that in a joke piece they found the time to poke a jab at Canada...twice.

Pretty low hanging fruit, it would be really hard not to poke fun at Canada. GOC just keeps giving them the ammo.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

The Hakugei is actually the fourth Japanese submarine to use lithium batteries following the last two Soryu submarines Oryu and Toryu and the first of the Taigei class the Taigei.

The South Korean KS-III Batch 2 SSK will also have Li-Ion batteries. So far, two (for a total of three) are presently under construction.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Seems dreamy

defense-aerospace.com

 

[Spencer100]

Seems dreamy

defense-aerospace.com

I guess dreaming can't hurt.

 

[Rainbow1910]

The article is very light on any kind of substantial sourcing to its claims, I would lean on filing it under "unlikely" to be very charitable. 12 submarines is entirely out of touch with reality with regard to Canadian sensibilities, budget, etc. I'd expect to see a 1:1 replacement of the Victoria class at minimum, maybe an increase to six submarines at the very most. Even a small scale submarine program is going to be a very difficult and complex endeavor, I do not even want to start considering the amount of risk that such a large 12 submarine program would entail.

 

[Spencer100]

The article is very light on any kind of substantial sourcing to its claims, I would lean on filing it under "unlikely" to be very charitable. 12 submarines is entirely out of touch with reality with regard to Canadian sensibilities, budget, etc. I'd expect to see a 1:1 replacement of the Victoria class at minimum, maybe an increase to six submarines at the very most. Even a small scale submarine program is going to be a very difficult and complex endeavor, I do not even want to start considering the amount of risk that such a large 12 submarine program would entail.

Dreaming on any replacement sub at all.

But I hope I'm wrong

 

[Underway]

The article is very light on any kind of substantial sourcing to its claims, I would lean on filing it under "unlikely" to be very charitable. 12 submarines is entirely out of touch with reality with regard to Canadian sensibilities, budget, etc. I'd expect to see a 1:1 replacement of the Victoria class at minimum, maybe an increase to six submarines at the very most. Even a small scale submarine program is going to be a very difficult and complex endeavor, I do not even want to start considering the amount of risk that such a large 12 submarine program would entail.

You don't do negotiations at all do you. Lol.

12 is the number we really need to do the jobs the government is asking for.

This is also not an original article. He who shall not be named wrote the original and that has much more detail. So I'm not entirely sure of what to do with the link....

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Seems dreamy

defense-aerospace.com

 

[Dana381]

If you want 6 then you make a case for 12. GOC "talks" you into accepting 6 and they are happy. Meanwhile you got exactly what you wanted. Plus then you have a reason to say no to some tastings... "if we would have bought 12 we could have done that"

 

[Edward Campbell]

In the 1986/87 a handful of pretty smart people - admirals and senior civil servants and one or two academics - made a cogent case for 12: it was, they said, the absolute minimum number of boats required for a three ocean Navy that an ted to have two available in each fleet on an almost continual basis. DND's engineers and RAM-D specialists thought 12 was an optimistically low number. The 12 boats were all to be nuclear powered. They then destroyed their own case by low-balling the costs to a degree that even the Canadian media could fathom and ignoring things like crewing and refuelling.

 

[GR66]

Realistically four subs isn't a credible submarine force for wartime operations. It's simply a peacetime capability maintenance force. The same way that 15 combatant warships is a peacetime navy for a country with the coastline and maritime trade that we have. We definitely need more subs and more warships (and auxiliaries) than we have/have planned but the question is how do we man them?

Certainly there are GOC/CAF specific recruiting and retention issues that need to be resolved, but military recruitment and retention is an issue right across the liberal West. Barring a crisis that results in a change in societal outlook that makes us take defence as seriously as nations like Poland or Finland we will struggle to man the subs/ships/aircraft/regiments/battalions that we have now, never mind expanded forces.

If we really want to have a military that is large enough to make a serious contribution in a major conflict I don't think we have much choice but to jump on the automation/unmanned bandwagon. We might not be able to man 12 subs, but can we man 4 x subs and 12 x XLUUVs? Or just 18 x XLUUVs?