Government Looking at Mothballing Victoria Class

[Smallc]

You live in a fantasy world.

[wyly]

You have absolutely no proof of that. You just made it up, just like all other military matters.

ya i do...a weapons system expert, ex-nato advisor...we're toast in one day vs any super power...even israel could neutalize us in a day should it wish to...

[Smallc]

ya i do...a weapons system expert, ex-nato advisor...we're toast in one day vs any super power...even israel could neutalize us in a day should it wish to...

No, they couldn't. Sorry to break it to you. Current cruise missiles can't even reach Cold Lake.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Smallc

[blueblood]

No, they couldn't. Sorry to break it to you. Current cruise missiles can't even reach Cold Lake.

Good thing we didn't have his attitude in 1812 and ww1. Apparently he thinks we don't have allies and we fight cohesively with them

[wyly]

You might be right, but I can't help but feel that diplomacy and the human beings behind it don't work exactly that way. In any disagreement, you don't start out right off the bat by blowing your rival away with a howitzer or an atom bomb!

actually in the situation described for which we need to prevent an aggressive takeover there will be no warning because there is no meeting half way on invasion, they'll hit us full on no warning given...

There's "a long way from thar to here!" as a hillbilly might say! By your reasoning, who needs an infantry? If someone pushes you a little, just nuke him!

Yet the infantry is perhaps the most important part of a military of all! Diplomats need options. Sometimes you need to just give a swat on the ass or maybe a smack on the head to straighten out the situation. You don't have any range of options if your only possible response is to start hurling nukes!

In a defensive situation, a gradation of options is even more important. Any response should be proportionate. Again, you are limited if your only response possible is all out Armageddon. That puts you in the category of a Kim El Dongo, of North Korea.

Somehow, I think Canada can do better than that!

infantry gives a physical presence and if your aim is to establish arctic sovereignty that's far more valuable than a fly over in a f35 which is over in a few seconds...and infantry is useless as well should a superpower decide to take our ice flows...we are incapable of defending a nation as large as ours without nuclear weapons, we're minnows swimming with sharks...

[wyly]

No, they couldn't. Sorry to break it to you. Current cruise missiles can't even reach Cold Lake.

sorry to break it to cold lake is well within range of sea launched cruise missiles from Hudson bay-1,100km, arctic-1,700km and pacific-1,200km oceans...

an american tomahawk has a 1,500 to 2000 km range...and you're deluded if you think russian and chinese technology can't match that...

[Guest Derek L]

Right...enough money could solve all of that, but Canada lacks the will (and defined missions) to make such an expensive commitment. Mission drives capabilities which drives weapons, sensors, range, and tactics, which in turn drives platform design and on and on. Nuclear boats in and of themselves do not provide anything special unless there is a concerted effort to leverage their stealth and range for a real purpose, all while gobbling up huge amounts of budget and other resources.

There are lots of intangibles that Canada cannot just buy from another country already operating nuclear submarines. History is littered with the cost of getting experience and making mistakes. India is learning that right now. Like aircraft crashes, hull losses rarely result in being able to just swim away in lifeboats.

Buy a nuclear icebreaker from Russia instead....much more practical.

I disagree on your thoughts on us lacking the potential requirements, but I wholeheartedly agree about the “will” (And money)……….If our operational requirements are to conduct surveillance in the North under the ice and project (the threat of ) power on the other side of globe, a nuclear submarines makes perfect sense for us…….but this ultimately is a strategic, political question.

At the level of operationally using them……Again, I agree to an extent……..Our Navy still operates with the same task group doctrine as we have for decades, similar in basic concept as yours, but well under the same scope……..An SSN (Or organic air and an Amphibious capability) is ultimately a force multiplier within the task force concept, and though we have no direct experience operating with these assets, we do have the indirect experience via our exercises (RIMPAC) and deployments (namely the Gulf as of the last few decades) with the USN……..I shouldn’t think any of these assets would be a deal breaker.

It all goes back to the political will and money…..which I agree, aren’t there.

[Smallc]

sorry to break it to cold lake is well within range of sea launched cruise missiles from Hudson bay-1,100km, arctic-1,700km and pacific-1,200km oceans...

an american tomahawk has a 1,500 to 2000 km range...and you're deluded if you think russian and chinese technology can't match that...

You're delusional if you think that DND hasn't planned for every scenario. And most cruise missiles are limited to 1000 km. The ship firing them won't even be in the water by the time they get close enough. It isn't as if we don't have warning systems all around the continent.

[Guest Derek L]

I believe the conservative government of Canada has reached the saturation point in new military spending.

Canadians aren't going to buy into much more of it for at least another couple of years.

This issue will die fast courtesy of the hard reality of economics!

WWWTT

Agreed 110%……We’ll have a hard enough time replacing what we’ve got

[Guest Derek L]

That would depend on what the Ausies got with their program, but if you numbers are right that would be 250 mil per copy ...last time i checked even the F-22 were not that expensive....

His number’s are (roughly) correct…….it includes spares/training, replacement engines etc….Much like the costing numbers we see associated with our JSF program

[Smallc]

His number’s are (roughly) correct

I just went with the figure that I've seen a couple of times.

Edited October 29, 2011 by Smallc

[Guest Derek L]

Rumour has it at over 10 years or 4.6 bil us which is still about the same in CDN dollars

They purchased the F model to replace the F-111....why a twin seater i don't know, maybe it makes since ...is'nt the F-15E a twin seater...anyways i can remember not so long ago we were having the same debate me sticking with the F-35 and you with the F-18 ...but things have changed a bit...something that has gotten me to change my postion is i know 65 aircraft is not enough...and i know there is no more funding available for this project....that and every day there seems to be less and less orders for this aircraft....infact the US is very concerned that it will also have to cut it's numbers...and good luck getting any more orders out of europe....

although i still like teh F-35 very much, i think it would be better to hedge our bets like the Aussies, buy hornets now, and later in the production run buy F-35's if and when that program stablizes ...

The time to have bough Super Hornets was about ten years ago………An incremental purchase/lease to replace half of our legacy fleet, forgo the Hornet upgrade and replace the remainder with F-35s…..As per the typically Canadian approach, we punted

[bush_cheney2004]

...At the level of operationally using them……Again, I agree to an extent……..Our Navy still operates with the same task group doctrine as we have for decades, similar in basic concept as yours, but well under the same scope……..An SSN (Or organic air and an Amphibious capability) is ultimately a force multiplier within the task force concept,

Agreed, but that is the very minimum level of operational capability necessary to join the club. By their very nature, submarines are most valuable when operating independently; chopping to a carrier task force as an ASW "force multiplier" just bores some sub skippers (and crews) to tears.

[Guest Derek L]

Agreed, but that is the very minimum level of operational capability necessary to join the club. By their very nature, submarines are most valuable when operating independently; chopping to a carrier task force as an ASW "force multiplier" just bores some sub skippers (and crews) to tears.

Defiantly, but the sub(s), in your case are even more valuable after the retirement of the Hoovers and Sprucans…….That’s the beauty of the SSN……..it might be with the CVBG……it might not…..deterrence all in itself……..But I agree, the ability of independence of operation is where it’s at with them……I’d opine that an SSN would be more valuable to Canada, with our finite financial resources, then a large (relative term) surface fleet…….A lot of what our 280s/330s do could be done with a large cutter with a helicopter.

[Smallc]

I'd rather have a large surface fleet. Subs, looking at it, are beyond our price range. We could get a few.... But probably not enough.

[Guest Derek L]

I'd rather have a large surface fleet. Subs, looking at it, are beyond our price range. We could get a few.... But probably not enough.

Oh, it would be either or for sure (As I said in my first couple of posts)………….We’ve budgeted ~25 billion for ~15 surface combatants……or ~ 1.67 billion per ship……..The Virginia Class SSN goes for about 2 billion a pop……..It becomes a numbers game………and what would leave us with a creditable navy, both surface and sub surface…….A bare bones minimum to maintain a three ship (Not including tanker) task group, 24/7/365 would be nine surface combatants ..or ~ 15 billion………Six off the shelf SSNs, another ~12 billion…….the expected cost to refit the Victoria’s about 1 billion……15+12-1=26 billion

[wyly]

You're delusional if you think that DND hasn't planned for every scenario.

oh really please list our anti-cruise missle defence systems I must have missed that expenditure...

And most cruise missiles are limited to 1000 km. The ship firing them won't even be in the water by the time they get close enough. It isn't as if we don't have warning systems all around the continent.

the missiles used are picked for the task at hand...the russians have cruise missiles that can be launched far from our shores as do the chinese...ship launched missiles would be done at commencement of hostilities and submarines and are extremely difficult to detect so again missiles will be launched before anything can be done...as for shooting them down, well we have nothing to do that with even if we could detect them flying under the radar...cold lake would be neutralized in the first hours, any f35s in the air would have no working base to return to and no support at civilian airports, our F35 fleet will be expensive useless scrap metal...

and our military knows all that and have admitted that they do not anticipate a military threat to our northern territory ...the implied threat is pure political manufactured BS for the consumption of a deluded canadian public in order to justify buying ultra expensive toys we don't need, or will ever need, and even if we had would do us no good...this is all about big boys getting expensive toys at tax payer expense...

Edited October 29, 2011 by wyly

[Smallc]

Let me put it this way - an enemy ship wouldn't survive their initial assault. They might fire, but the scrap metal jets would blow them out of the water. DND has planned for all possible scenarios.

[blueblood]

Let me put it this way - an enemy ship wouldn't survive their initial assault. They might fire, but the scrap metal jets would blow them out of the water. DND has planned for all possible scenarios.

How would a ship get close enough to north America without air superiority?

[bush_cheney2004]

How would a ship get close enough to north America without air superiority?

It's only a twelve mile limit.

[blueblood]

It's only a twelve mile limit.

During wartime? With modern detection? I think a rogue ship or invading navy would have quite a tough time getting to within 12 miles, let alone pop off a missile

[bush_cheney2004]

During wartime? With modern detection? I think a rogue ship or invading navy would have quite a tough time getting to within 12 miles, let alone pop off a missile

Submarines do it all the time...harder to stop than you may think.

Edited October 30, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

How would a ship get close enough to north America without air superiority?

There are maybe two countries (Russia and the US) that could do it, and Russia would have trouble. They don't have many more operational ships than us. Subs could pose a problem.

Oh, and France.

Edited October 30, 2011 by Smallc

[blueblood]

Submarines do it all the time...harder to stop than you may think.

In this hypothetical north American invasion, wouldn't security be tightened up? Cold lake would be pretty hard to hit with a cruise missile by a foreign navy, subs or not. I don't think subs would waste their missiles on cold lake...

[bush_cheney2004]

In this hypothetical north American invasion, wouldn't security be tightened up? Cold lake would be pretty hard to hit with a cruise missile by a foreign navy, subs or not. I don't think subs would waste their missiles on cold lake...

Cold Lake is a legitimate military target and easily within range for several surface, air, and submarine launched weapons systems. All of Canada is within range for intermediate or strategic ballistic missiles.

Edited October 30, 2011 by bush_cheney2004