lenaitch
Senior Member
Bold move and I understand their product is viewed quite favourably.
Bold move and I understand their product is viewed quite favourably.
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?
Instead of pontificating, why not just look it up?Why does Canada need submarines?
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.Instead of pontificating, why not just look it up?
Canada launching process to acquire up to 12 conventionally-powered submarines - Canada.ca
Canada is the country with the largest coastline in the world – an underwater surveillance capability is crucial to our security and sovereignty.www.canada.ca
"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."
And we need to develop nukes!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'd support nuclear-powered submarines, not nuclear-armed ones. That's the Australian plan under AUKUS.And we need to develop nukes!![]()
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.Instead of pontificating, why not just look it up?
Canada launching process to acquire up to 12 conventionally-powered submarines - Canada.ca
Canada is the country with the largest coastline in the world – an underwater surveillance capability is crucial to our security and sovereignty.www.canada.ca
"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."
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.
Yet you argue above that we should cancel the P-8 contract.Coastal defense doesn’t require submarines. Surface vessels and aircraft are far more effective at patrolling territorial waters and deterring intruders.
Agree that they are part of the package, but what do we do if it goes beyond "monitoring"?Satellites and drones provide superior visibility for monitoring enemy naval activity.
Besides being an idea right out of the 1930s, you propose to proactively mine out costal waters? Tough on trade and commerce.Mines and coastal missile batteries can secure coastlines without requiring expensive submarine fleets.
Countries like Poland, S. Korea and Norway might disagree with you.Submarines are valuable for countries with long-range naval ambitions and the need for deep-sea warfare capabilities.
Would love to read it.My thesis
If true, why would e need to spend anything on arctic security?I see the United States as being the major threat to Canada,
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.Coastal defense doesn’t require submarines. Surface vessels and aircraft are far more effective at patrolling territorial waters and deterring intruders.
I hope people now realize this business of picking fighters is real. India just lost a Rafale. Possibly to a Chinese PL-15.
![]()
French intelligence official confirms Pakistan downed Rafale jet as officials examine possible further losses
A high-ranking French intelligence official told CNN today that one Rafale fighter jet operated by the Indian Air Force was downed by Pakistan, in what would24newshd.tv
The folks with no experience or skin in the game who think stealth is just nonsense......urgggh.
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
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.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.
https://w0.peakpx.com/wallpaper/376...dfish-maritime-patrol-aircraft-radar-saab.jpg
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.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.