Acquiring Up to 12 Submarines,Canada launches the Largest Expansion of the Navy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 вер 2024
- Previously, at the NATO summit, Canadian Defense Minister Bill Blair announced that the country would procure up to 12 conventionally-powered submarines, with the procurement process now underway.
This marks the largest expansion of the Canadian Navy's underwater forces to date. Once completed, it will greatly enhance the Navy's underwater strength, potentially having a significant impact on regional military dynamics, particularly in the Arctic region.
Additionally, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that Canada is expected to meet NATO’s target of defense spending at 2% of GDP by 2032.
12? As a Canadian, I'll believe it when the last one shows up.
Yeah, never going to be able to man 12 let alone pay for them in the first place.
@@Jasperdog3329don’t hit me with those negative vibes.
As A Canadian I see our government committing to X amount and ordering 1/3rd of them and then using tax money to pay the penalties for backing out. Sucks for subs but I'd love to see it for the F-35. We should have bought the F-15 EX.
I’ll believe it when the 1st one shows up.
how old will your great grandchildren be when the first one is launched?
Non Canadian here but former USN sub sailor.
Keep in mind that even nuclear subs are limited in time on station to how much food you can carry.
US subs can only hold about 90 days of food onboard and that only happens on Western Pacific deployments where they are on station for 2+ months at a time before resupplying.
No sub is gonna spend that much time under ice on any given underway.
It’s one of the most dangerous operating conditions any nations sub force can operate in.
My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that Canada would be fine with a mixed fleet of conventional and nuclear subs.
There are pros and cons to each type of sub.
Having something like a fleet of 8 conventional and 4 nuclear subs would give Canada great flexibility of operations.
Australia’s deal calls for 3 US Virginia class based subs to be built initially and they have the option to purchase 2 additional if the program for the new designed subs that the initial program calls for gets delayed.
If Canada was ever going to consider nuclear subs they should probably figure it out sooner rather than later because the Virginia class subs production line won’t be open forever and it’s a fine sub for partner countries to import as they can be built to serve any countries needs like they are being built for Australia.
Completely agree. Canada needs to spend more on their military without gouging average Canadian tax payers. Tax the rich MORE!!!!!
I think canada has already decided on conventional, one reason is because of timelines to get them built and for service in the future.
Only?
God Bless America!!❤❤
We in the Netherlands considered the same thing during the 1980's. Back than for one nuclear submarine we could operate five or six conventional submarines. That means with the same budget of the 12 diesel electric they can only operate 2 nuclear powered ones.
My suggestion would be the lithium ion diesel electric with AIP system. Or up the spending for 6 nuclear ones. But looking at the coastline they have the smaller diesel electric is an obvious choice both size and numbers match the need. Handed in my dolphins last year after 28 years.
I really hope that we don’t buy anything from Britain. We got stung bad enough the last time.
@@davidjonah7402 there was a recent bit on the United Kingdom and their tight relationship with Soviet Russia. They've been helping the Russians since before the first world war. Tight like blood Brothers, them folk...
@@davidjonah7402 It's NOT likely that BAE will take a big step backwards and offer to build conventional submarines, additionally today they don't have the capacity to supply anything beyond the needs of the Royal Navy. RCN observers of AUKUS will be looking at tech options that will be considered.
Canada has nothing to do with the Royal Navy. The UK decides what goes on with the Royal Navy. Canada has their own navy, the Royal Canadian Navy.
Drop that word royal.
This is the 21st century and since 1970, over a dozen monarchies have been abolished.
Canadians do not need a foreign king living far away on an island 'hovering' over them.
@@John-nc4bl You clearly have no idea how the Canadian Government works. The entire system of governance is centred around the crown as a figurehead of the state. This is a good thing. States where ultimate authority rests with a politician can and have done terrible things. Canadian politicians have to ask permission to make significant changes to the country. That's how it should be. Remind them that they are not in charge, they are only temporary custodians working on behalf of the Canadian People and they can't do anything they want to.
@@JimmyJamesJ
Britain has a monarchical kind of government and it had seven Prime Ministers in a short period of seven years.
Northern Ireland was without a functioning government for a period of two years.
The monarchy representatives and its obsessed followers claim that the monarchy provides stability for a government but they do not explain how it achieves the so-called stability.
The so-called monarchy cult representatives are supposed to be apolitical and have no power and most certainly do not keep politicians in check.
That is done by the voters.so in reality, the citizens have more power than the monarchy cult representatives, (Charles and his associates).
If you think otherwise, then when was the last time royal assent was denied-?
The origins of the English monarchy began with the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain by Germanic settlers from mainland Europe in the 5th and 6th centuries.
The settlers were not ethnically related to the original indigenous people of the British Islands, i.e. the Celtic. Cornish and Welsh tribes.
The so-called current English royals are descendants of European royalty, most notably the German Hanoverians, who were also related to the Russian Romanovs, the last royals in pre-revolutionary Russia.
In 1917, George V changed their surname from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor to make it sound English.
Britons regard this so Britishness is about as bizarre as one could possibly imagine.
It is also bizarre that some British people continue to OBSESSIVELY FAWN over the current representatives who are not intimately known and representatives of an old cult-like institution which has an EVIL HISTORY and a PRISON - LIKE LIFESTYLE.
It is amazing how delusional some people can be.
The old English monarchy perpetuates a class system which is very divisive with people and it should be abhorrent to all mankind.
What is a monarchy if not the highest veneration of inequality?
Based not on moral worth but on accidents of heredity, a small group of people are lavished with millions of dollars skimmed from the public till and are worshiped as sentimental nationalist gods, in exchange only for performing the duty of “being pleasant in public".
The so-called English royals who represent an old institution with a very bad history are exempt from Freedom of Information requests.
They are the real enemies of history.
There is no area where restrictions and redactions are so severe.
Of the royal archives, they say, “Much goes in, but little comes out.
Australia and New Zealand will be the next countries to dump the monarchical type of government and form Republics.
@John-nc4bl Canadian here. Keep Royal in our Navy. Let me guess you voted yes for Quebec sovereignty. 😉
@@n74wilson33 I doubt he's from QC or was old enough to vote in 95 or he wouldn't be watching this video or posting things like this on it.
ive never LOL'd so hard in my life. the canadian government cant get their shit together to even handle the thought of building just 1
They were Upholder Class in the UK and renamed Victoria Class when they were purchased by Canada. Not the other way around.
@@jasonmckay2769 leaky second hand junk is what they were, they should've been on their way to a cutting yard, not Canaduh.
The issue is not the procurement but getting the personnel to man those 12 subs. That is the real challenge !!
@@sdpofjcoismzfljj I would agree with that from the current perspective. I believe (hopeful?) that if they put in place the resources, education, infrastructure and $$$ (pay!), people will show up. To quote the line from the movie, Field of dreams, ‘build it and they will come.. Procurement, on the other hand, is another kettle of fish..🙄
It'll be hard to find a thousand or so suitable people in a country of over 40 million?
My, the universe where you live must be a fascinating place!
I should come visit one day. And you should come and see ours!
I'd join but... Under Trudeau's gov hell fucking nah ill pass my turn lol
@@LordSt-MeowVIII Fair reaction. He's done a lot of damage. But have you heard this afternoon's big news?
Btw, is my reply of yesterday visible? Y/N?
"man those 12 subs"
I think what you mean to say is, "people those 12 subs"
Under-ice-capable subs, combat-capable icebreakers, a small fleet of multi-mission & MCM surface combatants, air defense, special operations. Those things can be done & done well at 2% of Canada's GDP, and are all that Canada really needs to focus on in order to both defend its interests and meaningfully contribute to NATO.
the only problem with all of that is man power....we don't have it.
LMAO - Nope…
We have 4 now.
Only 1 at sea.
I doubt Canada will get 12.
Probably only 4
Normal for 1/3 of a fleet to be operational at any one time for any country during peace time operations although 1 of 4 falls short
The actual number is minimum 8 and max 12 for the requirement.
@@chm985 The RCN has always had problems procurement of submarines.
Read J. Ferguson book Through a Canadian Periscope.
Everytime the government says the RCN needs 8 to 12.
We only get 4.
If I remember correctly from an interview sometime ago with Topshee or another RCN CO, they acknowledged that the subs we have we’re nothing more than to maintain a ‘core’ service of submariners to keep that division of the RCN active and ‘alive,’ albeit reduced in size. When the time is right then they’ll have a solid base to expand on. That’s my understanding..🤔 Can anybody weigh in on this? I’m thinking that at least for the moment they’re trying to limit forking out wads of $$$$ on the Victorias as much as possible in order to keep their resources for the next iteration of our fleet.
@@jazzmandan7056no they are going to spend 4.5 billion to modernize the Victoria Class to bring it’s service life to 2035. By that time the new subs will be getting commissioned. To eliminate a gap that has to been done.
First of all, pay close attention to the wording...... "Up to" 12 subs. So if they buy one, they've still kept their promise.
Second of all, even at that, don't hold your breath. Trudeau only made that announcement to get his legions of critics; foreign and domestic, off his back. Up here, we never heard a whiff of any of this. He pulled it out of his a$$ at the last minute to try to sound serious.
Facts of life in Canada.... from a 24 year veteran..... NO ONE in Canada takes defense seriously. NO one. Not even the Conservatives though they do talk a better game. There's not a single vote to be bought with defense spending, none, zip, zero, nada. That's why no one does any more than the bare minimum.
That will all change very soon.
@@allannantes8583 No, it won't.
@@hughjass1044why do you say that?
@@allannantes8583 Re-read my post and you'll know why.
@@allannantes8583 Because the conservatives traditionally cut military spending. The last time we had one they gutted our defence spending down to 1%.
My years of service 1967-96. Served under both traditional governing parties. More than once. Now… here’s the thing… both made great promises. Both bailed. Repeatedly. Both cut our military budget. Both cut the size of our military. Repeatedly. In 1967 what was the Canadian population? What was the size of our military? Google it. In 2024 what is Canada’s population? What is the size of our military?
Both traditional governing parties destroyed our military. The Canadian voting public has never made the state of our military a voting priority. Ever. Big announcements made recently. Fleet of Subs. Fleet of Destroyers. on what timeline? Both traditional governing parties signed up?
I agree it's been a disaster. I would argue they both mismanaged the economy for decades, the Canadian dollar is now worth a 1970s nickel.
@@PatriceBoivinthe Trudeau’s started it all. It was hard for the Conservatives to clean up the mess.
@@allannantes8583 I’m sorry that isn’t my experience. Both Traditional Parties failed to: 1) keep military equipment current when in power, 2) failed when in power to fix a broken procurement process, 3) cut military personnel when in power, 4) cut budgets when in power, 5) claw back budgets when in power & 6) failed veterans when in power. Both Both Both Both… did I mention… Both?
@@kevindelaney1951 Yes you did mention BOTH and you are 100% correct
@@allannantes8583 when have conservatives added to the military? Last time they cut the budget to an all time low of 1% gdp
Canada has the worst military procurement system in the world. It will take them a decade at least to make a decision and the choice will be political rather than one of military necessity.
Keep Canadian politicians out of the procurement process.
Believe it when I see it. Still waiting for at least one F-35.
2026 we get the first 16 F35s. But the bonus is that they're an upgraded version. Better electronics suite and slightly larger but the biggest bonus is the internal weapons bay will have a capacity of up to 6 instead of 4. So more capacity even in stealth.
@@chrisragona3945 plenty in the airshows...
@@seanhewitt603 but Lockheed cannot produce before 2026 no surprise
@@alpearson9158 don't care...😐🙄😐
Canada has difficulty acquiring 12 aircraft. I predict that Canada will end up with zero submarines.
I wouldn't be so sure, because of the increasing danger in the Pacific and Arctic oceans. Given the longest coast lines, it has to be considered.
@@vibrolax in the last few years we ordered 88 fighters, new tankers, new p8s, new drones, soon to be new trainers, and soon to be new awacs
@@chm985 Yeah. And the 2015 Trudeau government canceled Harper's 2010 F-35 procurement. Any big defense procurement in Canada becomes an electoral issue, regardless of the ruling party, because the majority of Canada's people are rightly skeptical of participation in the global American empire. An unfortunate side effect is that Canadians tend to shy away from adequate consideration of their legitimate defense needs.
@@vibrolax its a good thing that was canceled, because those aircraft couldn't be upgraded to the standard we bought. They were also $50m more each because of production issues. Most of those aircraft are used as trainers now.
@@vibrolax what harper or Martin should have done is bought 30+ super hornets to get us to the f35 program but both pm's failed the military
and Canada promised any person that uses the wrong pronouns will pay the ultimate price
Canada will not invest in the infrastructure, that is needed to support this. They can't recruit enough sailors for their tiny fleet now. No way will any government in Canada ever try this
I dunno - I was up in Churchill last year and the government was going nuts on infrastructure up there. Increased airfield capacity, a massive new hospital (in a town that is literally about 4 blocks by 6 blocks - they did not build that behemoth just for the locals that is for sure). Big expansion on the port including hooking the rail line directly to the port.
I obviously don't have all the infrastructure details but in this one area where I was able to observe its pretty crazy the amount that is going on.
I would not believe anything Trudeau says or promises.
That's normal, you work for Putin and he lies all the time so he thinks everyone's just like him.
Why's that? Any particular reason or are you still mad about losing the last 3 elections? I'm not a fan of Trudeau, but I'd trust the Liberals over the opposition leader who refuses to be vetted for top security clearance despite being repeatedly asked. What is he hiding that he doesn't want voters to know before they vote?
Than don’t vote for him
Putler prefers Poilievre.
Global protects the posts of Putler's online trolls!
I served 24 years in the RCN... retired in 2012... we had severe manning problems then, I wonder how they will find and train crews.
Lowering standards.
@@lindenbyrne7725 no the crewing is signifigantly reduced
@@alpearson9158 didn’t say it was working. The standards to get in to the military have been revised down like 3 times. They can’t recognize that if people don’t like the government the will have a negative view of the military as well.
I hope they don't have screen doors like the last ones
I hope Canada gets their Subs before Australia gets ours. I will be dead before ours arrive.
@@Mrbuckaroonie.. I think thats one of the reasons we are going conventional, not nuclear.
Delivery of the first one...2058.
and the canadas have to remember, when the sub goes under water to...CLOSE THE F N DOOR!
yup one massive dumb move cost one life and then another disaster when a CO ran a sub aground
Lets fix our government first..
you mean with the guys that have never built a warship and always reduce military spending yuo you will enjoy that
Good news. Canada would finally have more submarines than West Edmonton Mall..
Smart... this is the cheapest way to get to 2 percent GDP on defense spending.
I can not believe it for a minute.
Upholder class is the name of the subs from the Royal Navy, it was renamed Victoria Class once they got the modifications that the Royal Canadian navy wanted. Not the other way around
Canada can do joint navy ship building with Europe will at least have a make over to make the navy properly maintained and upgraded also is just a suggestion but will lower the cost building for newer navy ships as well as drones to help out the ships
Congratulation Canada. Bill made an announcement.
Bill is a fraud
GREAT NEWS, ABOUT TIME WE SHOWED OUR STRENGTH!!
@@NormanLor yah!, wet spaghetti has integrity!!
The 2% should have been meet this year. No wonder America complains
They should be invited in AUKUS
Not really, Trudeau has proven time and time again to be unreliable, corrupt, and just plain stupid. It's baffling that he was elected multiple times, it's starting to say a lot about Canadians smh
That treaty cedes too much control over foreign policy; Aussies have screwed themselves out of national independence. The price of their nuclear subs was having foreign military bases on their soil and foreign control of their subs. Besides, AUKUS treaty is not needed for NATO countries who are already in military alliance. (One which of course excludes Australia.)
A Canada / Japan bilateral military alliance might serve our needs better in securing the north pacific with regard to China & Russia.
@@wyldhowl2821you want to sacrifice every major Canadian city and the lives of millions of Canadian to interfere in China's civil war and to protect American Imperialist hegemony in Asia?
You are so brilliant.
China and Russia have never invaded or attacked Canada.
None of them have any interest in attacking Canada.
Why should we have hostile relationship with either of them?
In the contrary we joined the Foreign coalition that invaded Russia during the Russian Civil War.
China has never fought a single war outside its hemisphere in its entire 5000 years of recorded history.
China is inward looking country.
Their historic nemesis were always Nomadic Horsemen tribes from the Eurasian Steppe.
That is the very reason why they built the great wall.
They built the great wall the keep the barbarians out, not to bring them in.
Then the Western barbarians crossed the the entire globe and invaded China from the Sea and plundered and looted China during the 100 years of humiliation
That is why the Chinese are building a strong navy. Or as President Xi said a "Great wall of Steel" to keep the Western barbarians out.
Japan is a occupied tributary state of the United States.
So is Korea.
We have absolutely nothing to gain from getting involved in these AMERICAN Imperialist endovers.
We have absolutely nothing to gain.
Instead we should trade and do business with all these countries.
We should be selling our oil and gas to China, Japan and South Korea so we could diversify our trade from the United States
We don’t need Nuke Subs , just a massive cost.
@@wyldhowl2821then you should tell the Uk And US to get out of the AUKUS agreement because they are NATO countries. Talk sense man.
You can count on one hand the countries capable of building long-range advanced AIP conventional submarines. It will have to be one of those.
guaranteed Germany as an agreement was signed in the spring
Twelve becomes four after cost overruns. Hope not.
If they're not Nuclear powered, then it's a failure. ESPECIALLY if they're ment for the artic. The Virginia class would be a perfect and cost comparative to conventional subs and are proven technology and would seamlessly fit for joint operations with the USA.
Apparently the French have some sort of design for a large conventionally powered submarine somewhere in the back of the desk drawer that they aren't using now.
No they don't. Never did, it was a phantom design, we never ever saw a design from the French in our conventional submarine replacement here in Australia. So we went Nuclear with people we can trust, the Brit's and Yank's. No reason why Canada can't do the same.
@@craigritchie I was being a little satirical and facetious with my comment. As far as never saw a design that is not entirely accurate. It was going through a process and had passed different 'gates'. At some point though we decided that what was going to be the end design was not going to stack up so cancelled the project before proceeding through the next 'gate'. Phantom design is a bit harsh, but redesigning a nuclear attack boat to make it conventionally powered is hell of a task, even if you are using the same basic hull form. It meant it was going to be essentially a brand new design. The costs were ballooning and with construction and sustainment it was apparently projected to cost $245Billion or so from some estimates I've seen.
The Shortfin Barracuda submarine bought by Australia in 2016 was the conventionally powered version of the French nuclear powered Barracuda submarine. The 1st Barracuda was launched in October 2020. Sea trials successfully conducted. On 16 October 2021, just finished a three-month mission, more than 3,000 hours immersion and successful cruise missiles launching. Commissioned on 3 june 2022. The 3rd Barracuda was launched on Summer 2023 and the 4th will on 2025, with 2 more to come. On 15 March 2024 the Royal Netherlands Navy bought 4 Shortfin Barracuda submarines.
@@happyslappy5203 Not sure how different the design will be or if they will go with a French combat system and weapons load to simplify things. Australia wanted the US combat system they developed with the US and US weapons of course. With the Dutch wanting two boats in the water in a decade the build timeline might start to get tight. Hopefully the Dutch get a world class submarine to go with the world class names they chose for the boats. Orka (Orca), Zwaardvis (Swordfish), Barracuda and Tijgerhaai (Tiger Shark)
@@craigritchie Yes mais le Barracuda est trop cher pour la Royale Canadienne Marine! pourtant le meilleur choix comme ont fait les Pays-Bas! 6 au lieu de 12 et ça pourrait le faire, à condition que les Us et Rosbeef n'y entre jamais! Secret-Défence oblige après l'arnaque trahison des Australiens, ça se comprend!
Good to see Canada increasing it’s navy. For a country that borders three oceans it is stretched much too thin now.
You go the class names backwards. They were originally "Upholder" class when in UK service but were renamed to "Victoria" class in Canadian service as the first vessel was rechristened HMCS Victoria. All of the boats are named after Canadian towns and cities.
i hope they dont fall apart withing hours of purchase, like the last sub we bought
Canada attempted to buy nuclear submarines from the United Kingdom in the late 80s and the sale was blocked by the U.S. department of state because they didn't want access to the northwest passage impeded by Canada's defense policies
As a Canadian, I'm ashamed of this country's leadership! As one of G7 countries, the richest and most powerful countries in the world, Canada even has less military capabilities than its sister country -- Australia which has less population and wealth. But Aussies are much more determined to defend its own country than Canucks. Come on, Canada!
Pretty soon Canada is going to realize that we are in just as much a precarious situation as Australia. It is starting to happen but we need to find second gear, then third, fourth and finally road gear.
@@ascensionisdestiny1181 Canaduh is on stolenland anyways... Turnabout is fair play...
C-71 submarine class (A-26) is considered and they outperform every other proposals to The Royal Canadian Navy.
I wouldn't let the liberats try to procure canoes
@@nemesis196304 thats smart. Canoes wouldn’t be much of a deterrent. I’m glad we have you on our side watching out for Canada.
I really hope that we don’t buy anything from Britain. We got stung bad enough the last time. Don’t forget the soldier who died on that submarine that had a file as I tried to make it across the Atlantic from the first time.
The government is the problem. Each new party, when they come into power, goes out of their way to undo everything the previous party did to help the military.
I'm a canadian and I know this is not true. Just propaganda.
They are so powerful I like it
Justin Trudeau it's a shame for a country they are weak on everything
In punching power they are below Singapore!
The Conservatives under Stephen Harper were not much better. Fact is you don/t get elected for being strong on defense. Voters only only care about "what are you going to do for me me me!"
@@davidk2906 all is the same
@@alainparent5165 during harper our spending dipped below 1% of gdp. Trudeau has been guilty of being slow to act, all other governments in the last 30 years are guilty of a complete failure to act. Under Trudeau we have new northern patrol boats, building new destroyers, getting 88 new fighters, new jet trainers, new tankers, new awacs, contract for new maritime patrol jets, new drones, new rifles, and now new subs
The older Trudeau was the first prime minister since the WW2 to make significant investments in the Canadian military. He built the current fleet of frigates. The younger Trudeau started the new frigate program. To be fair Harper spent some money on the subs mentioned here but no where near what the Trudeaus did.
We best not buy them from the Brits. Last time we did that, they sold us 4 subs that didn’t work.
To build a submarine dont you need a skilled work force have we ever built one before
With the world's longest coastline do we need a seven seas navy or something more agile. A Dozen subs would make a good start to back up many small high speed surface vessels.
At least half of the subs must be nuclear-powered, for proper northern patrols
They don't need to be at all, you still have resupply issues with food so they can refuel then. There are cost and time-line issues with nuclear and this is expected to be done sooner than later. There is also time-line issues for service and repair for nuclear.
Canada has zero ability to maintain nuclear submarines. I would love to have some nuc boats too but it's not going to happen.
@@chm985however 90 days on station is away better than 18 days on station with a AIP sub.
@@Jasperdog3329we sure do, have you been living under a rock?
@@allannantes8583 its a fair argument but its already been decided as conventional from statements made in June or July. Cost was probably a deciding factor.
The last ones they bought were garbage, looks like they are buying more used garbage. They may order them with the optional screen door.
funny only the political kiddy's think so Jane's has a different view
1.39% and here Poland is at 4%
and still doesn't spend anything relative to Canada nor contribute to operations to this point
Powered by maple sirop 😅
We get 12 subs, then what? We don't have the man power to operate them.
Problem will be manning these subs. Canada has to actively get immigrants into service and STOP our immigration until housing crisis is fixed.
I see problems with infiltration by enemies right off. Those people shouldn't be allowed into law enforcement, military or anything to do with Canadian security. Go back to sleep.
@@DeeSmith001 how do you suppose we man 12 subs?
They need to be crewed by real Canadians not immigrants.
@@JT.Pilgrim Subs have crews of 30 - 50, they're tiny. Crewing them won't be an issue, maintaining them will be.
@@JT.Pilgrimmoney.
Bidders should demand that the GoC pony up the bulk of the purchase price up front. Or, at minimum place a good chunk into an escrow account upon signing of a contract with the successful sub manufacturer.
Let's add a couple hundred mantas or develop something similar.
Not fair, not balanced and not accurate. But besides that, interesting.
If they just purchased 15 type 26 destroyers then it isn't the largest expansion in the navy is it???
While I applaud the acknowledgement, albeit long overdue, diesel power subs is not the way to go. We should get nuclear subs, even if we have to buy fewer. The whole world has gone nuclear decades ago. Even Australia is getting nuclear subs. Diesel subs is a poor deterrence. Get in the game.
Excellent... sort of. Not planning on getting to 2% until the 2030's shows a continuing lack of urgency. The weasel words of 'up to 12' is another way of saying that 6 to 8 is more likely. The total lack of any concrete details means a minimum of 20 years before the first submarine is in the water, maybe longer. Canada cannot afford to wait that long.
Canada missed the boat on AUKUS nuclear submarines, but needs to get serious about joining AUKUS tier two ASAP. That will put them in the best position in case the global war situation declines badly, Canada would be in a position to maybe join the building of the new AUKUS class SSK planned to start for the 2040's, however the current AUKUS plans will be stretching Australia, the US, and UK to the limit and it is hard to see where Canada would fit in before the 2050's to 60's, so Canada will need to build diesel electrics first, even if it goes nuclear later.
The announcement conspicuously lacked important other details. Besides not announcing joining AUKUS tier two. There was no mention of building destroyers in addition to the frigates. No mention of building a smaller and faster to build corvette or small frigate class. No mention of building uncrewed AI submarines like the AUKUS nations have committed to doing, and are already in the water trialing. Perhaps that might be the fastest benefit to joining AUKUS. There was no mention of building uncrewed missile ships like the US and Australia have announced. No mention of acquiring and building new missile factories, like Australia is doing.
Come on Canada. This announcement is excellent and lifts you from an F grade, to maybe a C, but there is a long way to go before actually delivering on a credible and needed Canadian defense plan. 2% needs to be happening NOW and plan on 3% for 2032. Get into AUKUS. Make air, naval, and missile procurement an urgent and serious commitment, with a detailed timeline. Words are cheap. Show us the money.
As comparison. Australia is already started building the nuclear shipyard. It is expanding its submarine base and planning for building a new one. It has already expanded maintenance facilities for nuclear submarines, and this week a US Virginia arrived to be the first nuclear boat to be given nuclear maintenance in Australia. Australia has already invested billions into the nuclear ship building industry. It already has submariners and engineers in training in US and UK facilities and submarines. Australia has clear and detailed plans for surface, underwater, and missiles. It had F35 deployed before Canada had decided to get them. It is moving ahead with space developments with an Australian rover on the Moon within two years.
Come on, Canada. Get serious fast. You are in danger of getting left behind. Show us the money and we might believe it.
Canada would have gotten F-35 in 2015 until Trudeau cancelled the deal.
@@niweshlekhak9646 The same dithering is why they are now only TALKING about submarines. Talk is cheap. The time for talk was 20 years ago. Submarines should be on the slipway now. Instead the only thing they have done is decide to make an announcement. The announcement should have been Trudeau committing to signing contracts today. Announcing the beginning of the design stage. The committment of money to be spent now upgrading the current subs while putting the money on the table to kick start the next generation of submarines. And putting up money to make a credible bid to join AUKUS tier two.
Requirements from the military are 8 to 12, so no not 6
@@niweshlekhak9646 Its a good thing we didn't, those were $135m per airframe and not upgradable to the current standard we are buying (block 4). The units from that production run are now just used for training.
@@chm985 but we will get current F-35s by 2032 by the time there will be block 5 or 6. US will have 6th gen fighters coming off by 2030, that's way behind.
Canada has four options: Buy conventional, Build conventional, Buy atom powered, Build atom powered. I'd consider build atom power, under the 1987 strategy, with Aukus design in the long run, but a conventional gap filler from Korea is looking auspicious, even for the A of the Aukus.
I like your plan.
Of course we need nuclear subs for under ice operations. How long can a diesel electric stay underwater? 2 days? Maybe 3 if they don’t use the toaster oven.
I don't understand why we're not using nuclear submarines.
@@AHomelesschannell Because nuclear vessels cost hundreds of millions of dollars per year to maintain, along with specialized infrastructure. Not to mention the acquisition cost. France and UK can barely manage it.
@@vibrolaxthat is not not so on so many counts.
They’ll do all of this song and dance and smoking mirrors to make us Canadian citizens believe that they’re doing something great. In the end, they announce that the budget is too high, too many cost runs and building. New submarines will just simply be too expensive. In the end, They’ll end up buying secondhand submarines like they did in the late 90s.
You could buy 1
We don’t have any sailors to operate them
Just like our F35s coming in 2072 or whenever
ask The delayers there called Lockheed
We're going to get more used damaged goods by the time they arrives here😢
So who's used junk are we buying this time? I'm disgusted that we acquire junk and put the lives of our brave and dedicated military at risk by expecting them to use them. The four UK sourced antiques were a huge mistake and a waste of taxpayer money and again, risking the lives of our military to operate them. If we truly wish to acquire functional subs that will meet our needs, we should be investing in nuclear powered subs, not conventional diesel electrics.
Here we [Canada] go again. To a certain degree, there is no such thing as a "budget" submarine program. It's a tough program to fund with a population under 40 million people. Money may be better spent on a passive underwater surveillance network and rapid deployment ASW assets.
We are over 40 million population now so I guess we can afford nuclear subs now. Wow we just made it under the wire. I guess you will have to come up with a new excuse. Defend it or lose it, thats the proper attitude otherwise you will be letting all the boys buried in France down. The touch is now ours to bear.
Australia has less population and money than us and still can get up to 6 Virginia class.
You would have to be joking buying British second hand subs ! Interoperability using US made subs would be common sense. The announcement is probably just a photo opportunity for a gormless government .
Duh the ''Royal Navy ''
Drop that word royal.
This is the 21st century and since 1970, over a dozen monarchies have been abolished.
Canadians do not need a foreign king living far away on an island 'hovering' over them.
@@John-nc4blthen you should leave.
They should get the Spanish Isaac Peal submarines; they have a crew of 33-35 crew, and they are AIP and can go down to 1865+ feet deep and are around 3400 tons, not many diesel subs can go that deep and would be a great sub for the deep Atlantic Ocean.
Diesel electric submarines aren’t fit for purpose. Any navy that puts you in substandard equipment doesn’t deserve a good, capable crew.
We need nuclear subs (end of story).
Not even close to meeting RCN’s needs. We need nuclear powered subs.
@@allannantes8583 Yes we do but the government has already said that were not getting nuclear subs, so AIP and diesel subs it is, and besides AIP subs are quieter than nuclear subs and cheaper.
Spanish S-81 Isaac Peral class is an old design :
French shipyard DCNI came up with an all-new design called S-80 in the 1980s.
Spanish firm Bazán agreed to collaborate in a joint venture based on the French S-80.
Joint design was shown at Euronaval in *October 1990.*
May 2013 : Navantia engineers miscalculated the weight of the submarines by some 100 t, more than enough to sink the submarines if not fixed.
Navantia begged US General Dynamics to help solve the excess weight design issue.
November 2014, Navantia reported having completed the redesign work to address the problem of overweight. The hull would be lengthened by 10 metres.
Isaac Peral started sea trials in mid-2022, and completed its first static dive in March 2023.
1990-2023 : 33 years to build ONE submarine.
Spanish S-81: length 81 metres, 2,965 tons (1 delivered, 3 more)
French Barracuda class, nuclear attack sub : 99,5 metres, 5,300 tons (3 delivered, 3 more to come)
You have the naming reversed, the British called them upholder class the Canadians Victoria.
Canada has no underwater capabilities. Used broken down equipment
Delivered in 2035?
Canada dont need to reLY on submarines alone but it would be better if Canada can buy submarine from GermanY and Sweden theY are well worth the moneY very useful to keep canadian waters well Protected
@@charlesyeo5528 Ja! Ja! Und ve could be very careful of Ze vay ve go unter Ze Vasser...
If we cant man all our surface ships why are we buying 12 sub-surface ships??
@@michaelleal416 most likely, especially when they are new.
We need to make our own nuclear subs. This is a waste im sure they will be falling apart in no time.
currently no Canadain political party has an adult real world foreign or defence policy. This proposal seems like how many submarines to get 2%
You are so wrong.
New sub. Pretty good channel overall
Why are we not building our own
no shipyard for subs ever in our history
Had enough of juniors rainbow defense promises, I believe it when I see it.
Under trudue can would be lucky to get two canoes.😂
Sure ….arrive just in time to encounter underwater drones .
🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩
🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩
Das boot, eh
There Crap the don't WORK JUNK
Canadá puede y debe afrontar ese incremento del gasto, tiene una economía desahogada y sin Restricciones Políticas.
Su situación estratégica y Política hace de esta Nación un Pilar fundamenta en el Hemisferio Norte, dado su inmenso litoral a Ártico, como a los dos grandes océanos; Pacífico y Atlántico Norte.
🇪🇸 👏👏👏 👍👌 🇨🇦 ✌️🕊️
My question as a Canadian is; - How effective are these subs against Russian Nuclear subs??? Their subs may be poorly maintained but if properly restored will be far more capable and effective in combat. The trade off is training, logistics and military proficiency which is where the Russian Navy is in dire decline. The Canadian Navy while VERY VERY small and limited, but uses their ships and equipment far smarter than most far better equipped countries.
Nuclear doesn't mean better, Sweden has proven that in war games with the US.
Russia also has diesel subs,Kilo class and Ladas..&if Canada gets AIP subs,as seems likely,is a fair improvement
Oh no more used subs with screen doors like the used junk from The UK like last time.
For what.
Sure be nice if they would buy some that can go under water with out sinking!!!!!
NOT Royal Navy.
Drop that word royal.
This is the 21st century and since 1970, over a dozen monarchies have been abolished.
Canadians do not need a foreign king living far away on an island 'hovering' over them.
Canada can and must face this increase in spending, it has a comfortable economy and no political restrictions.
Its strategic and political situation makes this nation a fundamental pillar in the Northern Hemisphere, given its immense coastline to the Arctic, as well as to the two great oceans; Pacific and North Atlantic.
🇪🇸 👏👏👏 👍👌 🇨🇦 ✌️🕊️
Yes, we must, but the problem for Canada is Trudeau and the liberal party.
@@KellyBrownlee The problem as fake patriots who give their allegiance to Washington instead of Canada, no matter how fucked up the USA becomes. That would include Pollywanker and his supporters.
CORRECTION: we do have a political problem: we are overrun by “wokeness” after 10 years of Trudeau. Doubt we will hit that 2% target much less build those 12 submarines. Just a “stretch goal” as another well know Liberal used to say.
@@KellyBrownleeif it wasn't for the liberal party there would be no Canada.
The very idea of Confederation and Canada came from the Liberal Party.
The Conservatives were in power in the 2000s and the 1980s and during their time the military capability were cut just as the Liberals
The current state of Canadas military is a byproduct of both parties.
@@KellyBrownleehe will be gone soon.
All talk from the Liberals. :(
Blah, blah, blah I can actually support. I am optimistic that the 'plan' that makes generals so happy, will for many obvious reasons never materialize. It would just amount to a huge waste of money Canada doesn't have. Forget about the old school conventional warfare in the future of increasing geopolitical tensions between the three heavily armed nuclear superpowers. The next global war will end all squabbles and animosities foe ever. How in the world could a few subs make any difference? And the 'Royal Navy' shytte? Please, show some respect for this country...
2032 is too far away! Get rid of Trudeau! Now!
Thing is, no Cdn politician is that bullish on procurement of subs. Not a 'Trudeau problem' exclusively.