New Submarines: Carney vs Poilievre

[August1991]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-submarines-carney-south-korea-9.6959659

No doubt what to do.

[August1991]

We live in a different world.

[bush_cheney2004]

6 hours ago, August1991 said:

No doubt what to do.

 

Indeed, but the choice and contract downselect is never so straightforward when it comes to Canadian defence procurements.   TKMS knows this all too well and is dangling the much more expensive and delayed carrot of domestic shipyard jobs.

This is a bold procurement for new subs, but will likely play out like so many other projects in the past.   Getting the popcorn ready...

[John Stone]

Project is moving at light speed - first delivery is 2035. 

Doubtful anyone remembers the Oberon Class Submarines - purchased from the Brits they provided invaluable training support  for the Destroyer squadrons in perfecting close anti-submarine action. What was even more impressive was the maintenance support provided by HM Dockyard in Halifax. Extremely skilled civilian  support provided scheduled maintenance. The subs might have been RN  retreads but they were efficient, well maintained and a respected force. That infrastructure support disappeared with the O-boats. To get it back will take generations - providing the will is there. 

The thing you need to remember when it comes to subs is that they will kill  the crew very quickly if they're not properly maintained and crewed. A surface ship can tolerate a degree of complacency re: operations / maintenance - not  subs! I can't begin to imagine how Canada will ever get a degree of proficiency in a realm that is so complex, expensive. and very dangerous. 

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

The two contenders seem to be different in what they do?

https://www.piquenewsmagazine.com/the-mix/analyst-says-ottawa-should-pick-german-sub-builder-over-south-korean-rival-11409949

Anyway good to see movement. We need so much more of this.

 

 

 

[herbie]

I'm still waiting for the inevitable response on the subject by one of our MAGA members like Deluge or Pax

"Buy American! What would the Germans know about building submarines?"

sorry... just HAD to post that...

[Army Guy]

11 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Indeed, but the choice and contract downselect is never so straightforward when it comes to Canadian defence procurements.   TKMS knows this all too well and is dangling the much more expensive and delayed carrot of domestic shipyard jobs.

This is a bold procurement for new subs, but will likely play out like so many other projects in the past.   Getting the popcorn ready...

I agree, Canadians had sticker shock with the F-35 purchase, this project is going to cause heart attacks.......Navy Commander did propose a mix fleet solution because they need subs yesterday...Carney does not want a split contract to much work and not enough off sets.......

And to be honest Canada does not have one idea on how to make subs...it requires more skill than building surface ships....Besides this is a politic al decision now, Military has already shared their opinion and Carney will pick the one that has the most votes tied to it....

[bush_cheney2004]

44 minutes ago, herbie said:

"Buy American! What would the Germans know about building submarines?"

sorry... just HAD to post that...

 

Actually, the Americans know far better, having incorporated many German U-boat engineering elements into U.S. submarines after WW2.  Modern U.S. nuclear submarines still depend on a snorkel (Dutch innovation > German perfection) and head valve while operating on the diesel engine.  

Canada should not make the mistake of buying "clapped out" submarines again.

[Legato]

10 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Carney will pick the one that has the most votes tied to it....

Probably having talks with Jurgen Prochnow about Das Boot.

[JohnnyCanuck]

   I question the mission of the Victoria Class submarines of "Surveillance and Intelligence Gathering". In a world of Satellite photography,   instant communication from spies, and advance warning of enemy forces movement over the internet, I think we no longer need the submarines to provide these. In the 21st century there are so many less expensive ways of achieving the same result that we want from the Victoria Class Submarines 'mission', without buying more submarines.

To John Stone  who earlier said "What was even more impressive was the maintenance support provided by HM Dockyard in Halifax. Extremely skilled civilian  support provided scheduled maintenance. ..... That infrastructure support disappeared with the O-boats."     FYI  I have met many DND people who work at HM Dockyard Naden Esquimalt,  and often work on maintenance of the Victoria Class submarines when they are here. They would bristle at your suggestion that the "support disappeared."  or that somehow working on the Victoria class subs requires any less skill than working on the Oberons.  Over on the west coast the support has not 'disappeared' there are several thousand people who enter Naden daily to support and maintain RCN ships .   In talking to some of these DND workers I am told  of the laborious methods employed on maintaining the submarines - these stories suggest to me that the 6000 DND jobs at the dockyard  are being spun out to take as many hours as possible. It makes me think that we are just really keeping the dockyard labour force employed 'just in case' and there is not really sufficient maintenance work to justify that size of workforce in time of peace.  

So what should the RCN be spending money on instead of Submarines ?  When I look at the naval warfare actually going on in the world I see fleets of Drone Boats setting out into the Black Sea from southern Ukraine every day of the week.  The Ukrainian drone boats are either set up as a torpedo to destroy enemy shipping or docks or bridge supports, or  set up as mini-aircraft carrier holding 1 to 20 ?   airborne drones that are launched from the sea drone to attack targets on land or sea.   Building a force of drone boats is where I would like to see my tax dollars spent, not on submarines.

Edited November 1, 2025 by JohnnyCanuck
spelling

[Army Guy]

39 minutes ago, JohnnyCanuck said:

   I question the mission of the Victoria Class submarines of "Surveillance and Intelligence Gathering". In a world of Satellite photography,   instant communication from spies, and advance warning of enemy forces movement over the internet, I think we no longer need the submarines to provide these. In the 21st century there are so many less expensive ways of achieving the same result that we want from the Victoria Class Submarines 'mission', without buying more submarines.

To John Stone  who earlier said "What was even more impressive was the maintenance support provided by HM Dockyard in Halifax. Extremely skilled civilian  support provided scheduled maintenance. ..... That infrastructure support disappeared with the O-boats."     FYI  I have met many DND people who work at HM Dockyard Naden Esquimalt,  and often work on maintenance of the Victoria Class submarines when they are here. They would bristle at your suggestion that the "support disappeared."  or that somehow working on the Victoria class subs requires any less skill than working on the Oberons.  Over on the west coast the support has not 'disappeared' there are several thousand people who enter Naden daily to support and maintain RCN ships .   In talking to some of these DND workers I am told  of the laborious methods employed on maintaining the submarines - these stories suggest to me that the 6000 DND jobs at the dockyard  are being spun out to take as many hours as possible. It makes me think that we are just really keeping the dockyard labour force employed 'just in case' and there is not really sufficient maintenance work to justify that size of workforce in time of peace.  

So what should the RCN be spending money on instead of Submarines ?  When I look at the naval warfare actually going on in the world I see fleets of Drone Boats setting out into the Black Sea from southern Ukraine every day of the week.  The Ukrainian drone boats are either set up as a torpedo to destroy enemy shipping or docks or bridge supports, or  set up as mini-aircraft carrier holding 1 to 20 ?   airborne drones that are launched from the sea drone to attack targets on land or sea.   Building a force of drone boats is where I would like to see my tax dollars spent, not on submarines.

According to the commander of Canada's naval forces he says Subs are more important to protecting our sovereignty than any surface vessels could..., but one would think that the commander of our Navy would know a few things about the navy...and what he needs for future conflicts...

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

One good thing about foreign suppliers is that they don’t usually have a stranglehold over the politics of the purchase process and can be negotiated with by the government, up to and including cancellation. By contrast, with a local consortium you may have to abandon hope of control over the ultimate price as it multiplies. 

Longer term, I would worry whether South Korea can stay independent of Chinese influence and would prefer the Germans from that point of view. 
 

 

Edited November 2, 2025 by SpankyMcFarland

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Longer term, I would worry whether South Korea can stay independent of Chinese influence and would prefer the Germans from that point of view. 

Can't we speculate the same thing about the Germans and Russia? 

I like the idea of building drones, submarines seem olde fashioned. I bet we could station a lot more stockpiles of drones throughout the Arctic a lot more cheaply than maintaining the handful of subs that'll ever be on station and that aren't in drydock being maintained. Shore based drone stations would be full time all the time.

[I am Groot]

6 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Actually, the Americans know far better, having incorporated many German U-boat engineering elements into U.S. submarines after WW2.  Modern U.S. nuclear submarines still depend on a snorkel (Dutch innovation > German perfection) and head valve while operating on the diesel engine.  

Canada should not make the mistake of buying "clapped out" submarines again.

America's shipyards are already backlogged with orders. They can't expand or build or hire fast enough, and the Chinese are adding new warships at 5-7 times their rate.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

America's shipyards are already backlogged with orders. They can't expand or build or hire fast enough, and the Chinese are adding new warships at 5-7 times their rate.

 

This is why the British, Aussies, and Americans have aligned themselves for nuclear submarine procurement, production and deployments in the Pacific (AUKUS partnership).   Canada is not part of the plan...for now.

[herbie]

Britain and the UK are islands that you need to patrol around the entire coast and project force. Canada has 3 pieces of coast that can be covered by 3 bases for defence. .
We sure as hell don't need to spend another $12 billion for nukes when they don't need to be submerged for weeks at a time.

[I am Groot]

On 11/2/2025 at 12:38 AM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

This is why the British, Aussies, and Americans have aligned themselves for nuclear submarine procurement, production and deployments in the Pacific (AUKUS partnership).   Canada is not part of the plan...for now.

Irrelevant to my point. The US is falling well behind in replacing its surface warships.

16 hours ago, herbie said:

Britain and the UK are islands that you need to patrol around the entire coast and project force. Canada has 3 pieces of coast that can be covered by 3 bases for defence. .
We sure as hell don't need to spend another $12 billion for nukes when they don't need to be submerged for weeks at a time.

We have a longer coastline than the UK. And unlike Australia, we have Russia right next to us.

[bush_cheney2004]

4 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Irrelevant to my point. The US is falling well behind in replacing its surface warships.

 

The US Navy is purposely decommissioning older surface ships and submarines to change force structure and fund the new long-range shipbuilding plan.

https://news.usni.org/2024/03/19/new-navy-long-range-shipbuilding-plan-details-19-ship-decommissionings-in-fy-2025

The US will decommission more ships than in the entire Canadian Navy, and build more too.

[herbie]

6 hours ago, I am Groot said:

We have a longer coastline than the UK. And unlike Australia, we have Russia right next to us.

Doing you best Sarah Palin impersonation are you? Russia is 'right next to us' is it?
Look at a map, at the ocean not the fjords, inlets and internal waterways that constitute coastline. 3 oceans. 3 sections. No nations constituting a naval threat, no history or intent for force projection just patrol. Not like the UK or Australia at all.

[Army Guy]

On 11/1/2025 at 9:25 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

One good thing about foreign suppliers is that they don’t usually have a stranglehold over the politics of the purchase process and can be negotiated with by the government, up to and including cancellation. By contrast, with a local consortium you may have to abandon hope of control over the ultimate price as it multiplies. 

Longer term, I would worry whether South Korea can stay independent of Chinese influence and would prefer the Germans from that point of view. 
 

 

I'm not a sub guy, but i like the type 214 as well, it has more stealth, and Spec ops capabilities, plus able to attack or defend bottom of the sea infra structure...plus like you said not something the Chinese has influence on...The problem lays with delivery dates....our subs will be long retired before TKMS can build us replacements....

[Army Guy]

On 11/2/2025 at 6:06 PM, herbie said:

Britain and the UK are islands that you need to patrol around the entire coast and project force. Canada has 3 pieces of coast that can be covered by 3 bases for defence. .
We sure as hell don't need to spend another $12 billion for nukes when they don't need to be submerged for weeks at a time.

We are buying new subs that are capable of doing just that...spend weeks at a time submerged...required to operate under the ice cap in the artic....The best possible option would be a fleet of Nuc subs...how ever brits are concentrating on their new subs, and not building any more of the current type....American navy has a need for any and all subs they produce....not many options left to have them produced...or wait 20 years for the manufacturing line ups to get caught up... 

[eyeball]

27 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

The problem lays with delivery dates....our subs will be long retired before TKMS can build us replacements....

Our new subs will be outdated by the time we get them.

They probably all ready are given drones, robotics and AI.

Edited November 3, 2025 by eyeball

[August1991]

On 11/1/2025 at 1:02 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

The two contenders seem to be different in what they do?

https://www.piquenewsmagazine.com/the-mix/analyst-says-ottawa-should-pick-german-sub-builder-over-south-korean-rival-11409949

Anyway good to see movement. We need so much more of this.

 

 

 

Canada does not need submarines, or F-35s.

As a taxpayer, I object.

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Our new subs will be outdated by the time we get them.

They probably all ready are given drones, robotics and AI.

Kinda my point.

[herbie]

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

We are buying new subs that are capable of doing just that...spend weeks at a time submerged...required to operate under the ice cap in the artic....

No we're not. There's no requirement for that and only nuclear subs can do that. MOF I like August questton the need for subs when it's 2025 and satellites, sensors, missiles and drones can do that job for defence. 

[I am Groot]

16 hours ago, herbie said:

Doing you best Sarah Palin impersonation are you? Russia is 'right next to us' is it?
Look at a map, at the ocean not the fjords, inlets and internal waterways that constitute coastline. 3 oceans. 3 sections. No nations constituting a naval threat, no history or intent for force projection just patrol. Not like the UK or Australia at all.

You're aware of this thing called global warming, right? Yes, it's exaggerated. If Al Gore had been right, there would be no ice in the Arctic today. But it is true that things are warming. It is true that the north is starting to become navigable. And there are suspected to be so many resources locked away up there that every nation, including the Chinese, is jockeying for position to try and put in a claim. Russia's claim hugely overlaps ours, and there's nothing to stop them from just moving in and taking what they want.