News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.9K     0 

Why does Canada need submarines? Submarines are only of value to countries that have nuclear weapons as part of a "nuclear triad" and only if they are nuclear powered. Why would Canada need submarines? To meet NATO obligations? Trump has taught us that NATO is meaningless to Canada. How is NATO relevant to Canada after its biggest member - the United States - has threatened our sovereignty? In an interview with NBC's Meet the Press last Sunday Trump said, "he didn't think military intervention would be necessary in Canada". Did you ever think you would hear a US president talk like this about Canada? What will it take to wake us up?

And what about our European NATO "allies"? They have been silent. Does anyone think any European country would defend Canada against an invasion from the United States? What about the UK? Even the King has been silent. Over 40,000 Canadians died in World War 2. In the hindsight of history, it is obvious they died for nothing. The Europeans will never return the favor.

Canada needs to get serious about our national security. Canada needs to start acting like a serious country. We should get out of these foreign military alliances that just drag us into foreign conflicts halfway around the world that have nothing to do with Canada. We need a Canadian defense force "CDF" that is focused solely on protecting our homeland. Every Canadian soldier should be based solely in Canada. Why do we have soldiers based in Europe? Why do we have forces in Africa? Why is the Canadian Navy in the South China Sea? Why are Canadian Airforce aircraft tangling with Chinese Airforce aircraft in the South China Sea region? How are they defending Canada? Can anyone give me a good reason for this?

Military recruitment would skyrocket if young Canadians realized that they were signing up to defend Canada and Canada alone and that they won't be sent halfway around the world to fight and die in another country. In Afghanistan 40,000 Canadians fought for over a decade and 165 did not come home alive. They died for the United States, a country that has shown zero gratitude for their sacrifices and which today threatens our sovereignty. No American has ever fought for Canada in a war. No American has ever shed any blood for Canada. Ever!

Canada needs to get serious about self-defense. We don't need to spend $20 billion on submarines. We don't need to spend $20 billion on F-35 jets. That contract should be cancelled. We don't need to spend $10 billion on Boeing P-8 Poseiden's. That contract should be cancelled. We don't need to spend $5 billion on American Reaper drones - that contract needs to be cancelled. I am sure there must be billions more in contracts with the Americans. Canada spends 80 cents of every defense dollar in the United States. Under Trump that should be ZERO!

Canada needs to be spending massive amounts on air-defense systems and massive amounts on long range hypersonic missiles and yes, we need to develop nuclear weapons we have the technology and resources to develop nuclear warheads to put on the tip of hypersonic missiles with a range of at least 2,000 miles. We need to spend massive amounts on over-the-horizon radar systems that can detect stealth aircraft like the F-35. Russia and China have this system and apparently so too does Iran. Last year when Israel attempted to take out Iranian air defense systems their F-35's had to turn back after they were "locked on" by an unknown radar system.

Canada needs to wake up! If Trump ordered an invasion of Canada tomorrow, we would be completely defenseless despite our wealth and the billions we have committed to NATO and NORAD over the past decades. Almost every dollar spent by our military has been a waste. Compare Canada to Yemen, one of the poorest countries in the world if not the poorest. Yemen has been able to shoot down 7 American Reaper drones. Yemen has hypersonic missiles, and they were able to successfully strike Ben Gurion airport defeating 4 layers of air defense including the vaunted American THAAD ballistic air defense system. Yesterday the US announced a truce with Yemen after Yemen demonstrated it had the upper hand.
 
Last edited:
Why does Canada need submarines?
Instead of pontificating, why not just look it up?


"Canada is the country with the largest coastline in the world – an underwater surveillance capability is crucial to our security and sovereignty. Our Arctic is now warming at four times the global average, making a vast and sensitive region more accessible to foreign actors who have growing capabilities and regional military ambitions. By 2050, the Arctic Ocean could become the most efficient shipping route between Europe and East Asia. Canada's Northwest Passage and the broader Arctic region are already more accessible, and competitors are seeking access, transportation routes, natural resources, critical minerals, and energy sources through more frequent and regular presence and activity. They are exploring Arctic waters and the sea floor, probing our infrastructure and collecting intelligence. In the maritime domain, Russian submarines are probing widely across the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific Oceans and China is rapidly expanding its underwater fleet. In response to these emerging security challenges, in Our North, Strong and Free, the Government of Canada committed to exploring options for renewing and expanding our submarine fleet, in order to allow Canada to detect and deter threats and control our maritime approaches."
 
Instead of pontificating, why not just look it up?


"Canada is the country with the largest coastline in the world – an underwater surveillance capability is crucial to our security and sovereignty. Our Arctic is now warming at four times the global average, making a vast and sensitive region more accessible to foreign actors who have growing capabilities and regional military ambitions. By 2050, the Arctic Ocean could become the most efficient shipping route between Europe and East Asia. Canada's Northwest Passage and the broader Arctic region are already more accessible, and competitors are seeking access, transportation routes, natural resources, critical minerals, and energy sources through more frequent and regular presence and activity. They are exploring Arctic waters and the sea floor, probing our infrastructure and collecting intelligence. In the maritime domain, Russian submarines are probing widely across the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific Oceans and China is rapidly expanding its underwater fleet. In response to these emerging security challenges, in Our North, Strong and Free, the Government of Canada committed to exploring options for renewing and expanding our submarine fleet, in order to allow Canada to detect and deter threats and control our maritime approaches."
Ya, so much wrong with that post it's hard to know where to begin. Apparently we need to focus on physically defending Canada by cancelling kit that does exactly that.
 
I hope people now realize this business of picking fighters is real. India just lost a Rafale. Possibly to a Chinese PL-15.


The folks with no experience or skin in the game who think stealth is just nonsense......urgggh.
 
Instead of pontificating, why not just look it up?


"Canada is the country with the largest coastline in the world – an underwater surveillance capability is crucial to our security and sovereignty. Our Arctic is now warming at four times the global average, making a vast and sensitive region more accessible to foreign actors who have growing capabilities and regional military ambitions. By 2050, the Arctic Ocean could become the most efficient shipping route between Europe and East Asia. Canada's Northwest Passage and the broader Arctic region are already more accessible, and competitors are seeking access, transportation routes, natural resources, critical minerals, and energy sources through more frequent and regular presence and activity. They are exploring Arctic waters and the sea floor, probing our infrastructure and collecting intelligence. In the maritime domain, Russian submarines are probing widely across the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific Oceans and China is rapidly expanding its underwater fleet. In response to these emerging security challenges, in Our North, Strong and Free, the Government of Canada committed to exploring options for renewing and expanding our submarine fleet, in order to allow Canada to detect and deter threats and control our maritime approaches."
That is the official rationale for acquiring submarines. Canada needs them because we have the longest coastline in the world, i.e., for coastal patrol, and we need them because Arctic warming is inviting more activity from foreign vessels in the Arctic, so we need subs for Arctic sovereignty.

Coastal defense doesn’t require submarines. Surface vessels and aircraft are far more effective at patrolling territorial waters and deterring intruders.

Satellites and drones provide superior visibility for monitoring enemy naval activity.

Mines and coastal missile batteries can secure coastlines without requiring expensive submarine fleets.

So, for a country like Canada, which mainly focuses on Arctic sovereignty and coastal security, the necessity of submarines is debatable.

Submarines are valuable for countries with long-range naval ambitions and the need for deep-sea warfare capabilities. Their primary strategic advantages come from stealth, deterrence, and anti-submarine warfare, which are far more relevant for global naval powers than for purely coastal defense forces. I see Canada falling into the latter category.

My thesis was that Canada needs to rethink defense policy and focus solely on defending the Canadian homeland. We don’t benefit from being in NATO, which commits us to expensive military misadventures around the world.

I see the United States as being the major threat to Canada, and I don’t see our European “allies” coming to our defense if the unthinkable were to happen. I don’t see how $20 billion on submarines would help Canada defend against its greatest threat. We need to spend that money on air-defense systems, long-range hypersonic missiles, drones, anti-tank missiles, MANPADS (to take out Black-Hawks), Tanks, and artillery. Canada currently lacks many things on this shopping list, or if we have them, they are in very short supply so we should drop the notion that we need to buy subs and for that matter F-35 jets in keeping with the topic of this thread.
 
Coastal defense doesn’t require submarines. Surface vessels and aircraft are far more effective at patrolling territorial waters and deterring intruders.

Satellites and drones provide superior visibility for monitoring enemy naval activity.

Mines and coastal missile batteries can secure coastlines without requiring expensive submarine fleets.

Can you please tell us how much time you spent in the Navy or in naval aviation?

I'm on an EW course right now and my classmates who fly and fight Cyclones and Auroras certainly don't share your opinion.

 
Coastal defense doesn’t require submarines. Surface vessels and aircraft are far more effective at patrolling territorial waters and deterring intruders.
Yet you argue above that we should cancel the P-8 contract.

What do we do if an intruder is not so deterred?

Satellites and drones provide superior visibility for monitoring enemy naval activity.
Agree that they are part of the package, but what do we do if it goes beyond "monitoring"?

Mines and coastal missile batteries can secure coastlines without requiring expensive submarine fleets.
Besides being an idea right out of the 1930s, you propose to proactively mine out costal waters? Tough on trade and commerce.

Submarines are valuable for countries with long-range naval ambitions and the need for deep-sea warfare capabilities.
Countries like Poland, S. Korea and Norway might disagree with you.

My thesis
Would love to read it.

I see the United States as being the major threat to Canada,
If true, why would e need to spend anything on arctic security?
 
Coastal defense doesn’t require submarines. Surface vessels and aircraft are far more effective at patrolling territorial waters and deterring intruders.
Bold claim. Now explain your qualifications. What experience or expertise do you have in naval operations or coastal defense strategy? Because right now it sounds like you are speaking with complete certainty on a subject you are seemingly not equipped to evaluate. My take is that we should rely on the experts at the CAF and DND to best equip the country to deal with the security and defence priorities outlined by the government.
 
I hope people now realize this business of picking fighters is real. India just lost a Rafale. Possibly to a Chinese PL-15.


The folks with no experience or skin in the game who think stealth is just nonsense......urgggh.

Apparently it was a J-10.

1746724964824.png


The Rafale and the model of the J-10 used by Pakistan are both considered generation 4.5 fighter jets, placing them at the leading edge of combat aircraft
 
Yet you argue above that we should cancel the P-8 contract.

What do we do if an intruder is not so deterred?


Agree that they are part of the package, but what do we do if it goes beyond "monitoring"?


Besides being an idea right out of the 1930s, you propose to proactively mine out costal waters? Tough on trade and commerce.


Countries like Poland, S. Korea and Norway might disagree with you.


Would love to read it.


If true, why would e need to spend anything on arctic security?
Yes, we should cancel the Boeing P-8 contract and buy maritime patrol aircraft from Bombardier. Other countries operate Bombardier Global aircraft configured for maritime patrol but not Canada? Bombardier was not even invited to bid on the patrol contract. It was sole sourced from Boeing which is inexplicable considering it was Boeing's trade complaint against the Bombardier C-Series program that resulted in Bombardier having to sell the program it had invested $7 billion in, to Airbus for $1. Boeing should have been blacklisted from any military contract after that.

31557
 
Last edited:
Yes, we should cancel the Boeing P-8 contract and buy maritime patrol aircraft from Bombardier. Other countries operate Bombardier Global aircraft configured for maritime patrol but not Canada? Bombardier was not even invited to bid on the patrol contract. It was sole sourced from Boeing which is inexplicable considering it was Boeing's trade complaint against the Bombardier C-Series program that resulted in Bombardier having to sell the program it had invested $7 billion in, to Airbus for $1. Boeing should have been blacklisted from any military contract after that.

https://w0.peakpx.com/wallpaper/376...dfish-maritime-patrol-aircraft-radar-saab.jpg

Bombardier itself doesn't make any Maritime Patrol Aircraft.

There are converted versions of Bombardier aircraft made by Marshall Aerospace used for maritime surveillance by the UAE. Note that a surveillance aircraft is different from a patrol aircraft. The key difference being that patrol aircraft can carry and deliver ordinance.

There was two Maritime Patrol Aircraft proposals. One was the Swordfish proposal by Saab, based on repurposing the Saab GlobalEye AEW platform. The other was a proposal by PAL to convert a Bombardier Global into a Maritime Patrol Aircraft, named the P-6. Neither of the proposals even got to the design stage. They were simply marketing pitches to the Canadian government asking for funding. Both proposals were substantially risky, because integration of ordinance carriage on an aircraft full of emitters is a difficult and dangerous endeavour. Neither proposal offered the same performance (payload, range, etc) as the Boeing P-8, while carrying substantial development risk and cost. They even lacked certain features like Air-to-Air Refuelling which the P-8 has. Not a small matter in a country and airspace as large as ours.

And this is why Bombardier was not asked to bid. The RCAF didn't want paper proposals that it would have to carry all the development risk for. The air force has now been burned badly doing this twice. First on the Cyclone helicopter, coming from the 90s Liberal cancellation of the EH-101. And more recently on the Kingfisher Search and Rescue aircraft because the last Conservative government cheaped out. Since those debacles, only mature platforms and capabilities are allowed to bid.
 
Bombardier itself doesn't make any Maritime Patrol Aircraft.

There are converted versions of Bombardier aircraft made by Marshall Aerospace used for maritime surveillance by the UAE. Note that a surveillance aircraft is different from a patrol aircraft. The key difference being that patrol aircraft can carry and deliver ordinance.

There was two Maritime Patrol Aircraft proposals. One was the Swordfish proposal by Saab, based on repurposing the Saab GlobalEye AEW platform. The other was a proposal by PAL to convert a Bombardier Global into a Maritime Patrol Aircraft, named the P-6. Neither of the proposals even got to the design stage. They were simply marketing pitches to the Canadian government asking for funding. Both proposals were substantially risky, because integration of ordinance carriage on an aircraft full of emitters is a difficult and dangerous endeavour. Neither proposal offered the same performance (payload, range, etc) as the Boeing P-8, while carrying substantial development risk and cost. They even lacked certain features like Air-to-Air Refuelling which the P-8 has. Not a small matter in a country and airspace as large as ours.

And this is why Bombardier was not asked to bid. The RCAF didn't want paper proposals that it would have to carry all the development risk for. The air force has now been burned badly doing this twice. First on the Cyclone helicopter, coming from the 90s Liberal cancellation of the EH-101. And more recently on the Kingfisher Search and Rescue aircraft because the last Conservative government cheaped out. Since those debacles, only mature platforms and capabilities are allowed to bid.
Bombardier Defense and General Dynamics Mission Systems–Canada have been working on a next-generation multi-mission patrol aircraft based on the Global 6500 platform (see below). This aircraft is designed for anti-submarine warfare, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions and was proposed as an alternative to Boeing’s P-8 Poseidon for Canada’s Multi-Mission Aircraft (CMMA) program.

While Bombardier has not secured a formal contract for this aircraft, the Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC) has signed a memorandum of understanding to support export opportunities for the platform. This means Bombardier and General Dynamics are actively exploring international markets for their multi-mission aircraft, even though Canada ultimately chose Boeing’s P-8 Poseidon for its patrol fleet.

As for inflight refueling a patrol aircraft based on the Global 8000 platform would have a range of 8,000 nautical miles which translates into almost 16 hours of continuous flight under optimal conditions so I don't think inflight refueling would be necessary. How long is a normal patrol mission?

Also, Israel Aircraft Industries markets the ELI-3360 as an all-weather, multi-mission, long-range Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) based on high performance business jet platforms such as the Bombardier Global 6500 or mid-size platforms such as the Challenger 650 or Gulfstream G280 so there are alternatives to Boeing using Bombardier aircraft platforms.


New-Maritime-Patrol-Aircraft-Project-from-Canada.jpg
 

Back
Top