New Submarines: Carney vs Poilievre

[August1991]

We Canadians avoided the cataclysm/collapse of August 1914.

Heck, we Canadians even avoided the US civil war.

We Canadians get along.

We Canadians: French, English, Catholic, Protestant, indigineous, whatever.

We get along.

Edited November 12, 2025 by August1991

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, August1991 said:

We Canadians avoided the cataclysm/collapse of August 1914.

No we did not, we went to that war

Quote

Heck, we Canadians even avoided the US civil war.

Because we weren't invented yet

Quote

We Canadians get along.

You know it's a lie. I don't understand why you insist on being such a dishonest person. You seem nice and relatively sort of almost normal a lot of the time but then you say stuff that you know is a lie and has been pointed out and disproven many times. Your own province is considering separating

You go through these days where you try and convince everyone you're stupid uneducated Twat I have a Frenchman who doesn't even understand how our politics work. I don't understand why you feel the need

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, August1991 said:

All the more reason to avoid wasting money on building a larger dreadnought.

 

 

Not dreadnoughts...just practical surface and submarine combatants for training work-ups, patrol, NATO missions, other deployments, interoperability with allies, maintenance refit cycles, complete overhauls, etc.  If Canada buys one submarine, then it has to buy more to keep at least one deployable.  That's just the real world ops cycle to keep naval assets at sea.   They will need more crews too.

I remember The Great Turbot War (1995) that required frigates and destroyers to run the Spanish off and set precedent for enforcing coastal economic zones.  Hard to do that with no "dreadnoughts".  

The new River Class guided missile destroyers look promising...if they are actually built.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just wanted to add that Canada was a pioneer in gas turbine propulsion for frigates and destroyers going back to the late 1960's.  The Iroquois Class was very innovative in this regard and many other nations jumped onboard this trend.  So Canada has led the way in the past.

[paxamericana]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Just wanted to add that Canada was a pioneer in gas turbine propulsion for frigates and destroyers going back to the late 1960's.  The Iroquois Class was very innovative in this regard and many other nations jumped onboard this trend.  So Canada has led the way in the past.

America should have used its submarines fleet to sail up Hudson Bay and frame the Russian. We need to get creative on scaring the NATO deadbeat into paying their bill. 

[Down East]

Although expensive, nuclear powered or AIP variant subs are the way to go for RCN because that they have far superior arctic endurance and can hide under the cap for longer periods of time.  Diesel electric boats are not the best choice in that environment.

 

On 11/3/2025 at 11:10 PM, herbie said:

questton the need for subs when it's 2025 and satellites, sensors, missiles and drones can do that job for defence. 

Submarines are still the weapon of choice if you can afford them, and will be for a long time.

You can't hide surface missiles or sensors for very long, and satellites can be jammed by today's technology. The suspected areas would be the first targets of a foreign adversary. Then what do you have left?

A competent submarine captain can play cat and mouse for a very long time before he chooses to go on offense. He can shoot and disappear again.

[Army Guy]

13 hours ago, August1991 said:

Canada does not need submarines. They are a waste of money. Full stop. 

Carney wants them because he thinks that it will appease Trump.

====

We Canadians are greater than that.

That's a bold statement August, perhaps you can explain how you came to this outcome, do you have Naval command experience ? Many Canadians think they know better than the people who command our military, or those that have the experience or knowledge of running certain aspects of our military...

Canada has had subs for decades and now today you decide we don't need them, and yet the commander of the NAVY states they are an integral part of the NAVY, NATO commanders have stated that SUBS play a major role in the NAVY....Anyone that served in the NAVY will state that SUBs are the most dangerous weapon in the NAVY...

This has got nothing to do with trump....full stop...This has everything to do with replacing Subs that pose a life threatening danger TO Canadian SUBMARINERS...every time they go out...these subs have already claimed the lives of Canadians...and some how they are to much for you to wrap your mind around...

Canadians are only as great as they want to be, and right now we are laggards in our duties and signed defense commitments, we are weak 9in the eyes of our allied, and internally we have two groups of people who don't want to be Canadians....we don't have the will to fix any of it....that's not the sign of a great people , its a sign of lazy bunch of quitters...

 

[eyeball]

20 hours ago, taxme said:

What the hell does Canada need a submarine for? Can you tell me or anyone else here as to why Canada needs a new submarine costing the Canadian taxpayer's billions of their tax dollars? Are we soon to be invaded by communist China or North Korea? 

That's pretty much exactly what the sort of governments you support would have us believe.

The sorts of governments you don't support go along with it because they have to be seen pandering to it to woo moderate voters.

It's like political parties eschewing climate concern but talking up carbon capture and saying no to fossil fuels while building pipelines.

It is what it is.

[taxme]

21 hours ago, August1991 said:

I agree.

Arctic Ocean? WTF?

=====

Harper wisely bought a few costly C-17s. This is Canada: When needed, fly in to fix the problem.

=====

Carney is doing what Trump wants - spend zillions on useless nonsense hardawre.

 

In the beginning we went from hundreds, to thousands to millions, then to billions, then to trillions and to maybe very soon we will start to hear the word zillions. Geez, all i will ever be able to see and use and own in my bank account is thousands. Where the hell did i go wrong in life? 🤔 

[taxme]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

That's pretty much exactly what the sort of governments you support would have us believe.

The sorts of governments you don't support go along with it because they have to be seen pandering to it to woo moderate voters.

It's like political parties eschewing climate concern but talking up carbon capture and saying no to fossil fuels while building pipelines.

It is what it is.

I support a government that makes gawd dam sense. And this Carnage lieberal leader does not have any common sense and logic in his broken brain head. All that Carnage is good for is to try and destroy this once great country called Canada by getting rid of all industries and try and create and implement more new laws to stifle freedom of speech and to also create new censorship communist laws against freedom loving conservative patriots like me. 

I know that you are a lieberal but did you know that today lieberalism equals communism? Everything that Carnage does here in Canada these days is very destructive and he despise and truly hates conservative patriots like me and who wants to put all freedom loving patriotic conservative in his communist gulag. 

What is so sad about it all is that you support this lieberal WEF Zionist globalist ilk cabal that has no respect for freedom of speech and freedom. You are but one lieberal that should be really ashamed of himself. You like and enjoy seeing the Marxist lieberals in Ottawa freeze peoples bank and credit card accounts.

I thought that we lived in a free country where freedom of expression should be preserved and protected. But instead, you as a Marxist lieberal, you have no shame being a Marxist lieberal. 

Maybe one day what you sow today, could reverse for you, where you will one day get to reap what you have sowed yesterday. Karma may one day just come around and then kick you in your Marxist lieberal arse. I can only hope that it won't be too long for me to see happen. 😁

[Venandi]

18 hours ago, eyeball said:

That's pretty much exactly what the sort of governments you support would have us believe.

The sorts of governments you don't support go along with it because they have to be seen pandering to it to woo moderate voters.

I'm not sure what that means. Are you suggesting that no one supports it then?

-----------------

In general , and IMO of course, if you have a huge coastline, an inadequate supply of surface combatants, limited shore bombardment capabilities and limited TASMO options all at the same time, then logically (I think) the force multiplier effect of submarines is a topic worthy of sober reflection.

Over the years I've watched (mostly in awe) as capabilities got whittled away and the prefix always seemed to be "Canada doesn't need."

For me, heavy lift helicopters was the most obvious one to date but I'm now hearing the same sentiments expressed (in some circles) about ASW and fighters in addition to subs. All are perishable capabilities (especially ASW and subs) and you have to envision a world where you will never face a submarine threat and never need to protect airspace in order to make your case. I'd simply observe that water is where your navy operates and airspace is the domain of the rest of your AIR Force. 

There's an interesting overlap in this stuff too, if you are going to offer TASMO as a reason to limit an NGS capability does it make sense to later say that Canada doesn't need fighters?  

As it stands, any potential aggressor(even in low-level events like fishery disputes) is forced to consider the presence (or possible presence) of submarine(s) and take the appropriate precautions. It imposes a significantly broader threat assessment on them and requires a lot of baggage to counter (and you can't not counter it)... the Falklands conflict is case in point. 

You can find reams of information about the value of submarines on line and northern sovereignty should be a consideration for anyone who sees global warming as a threat. I won't belabour this point further but (I think) a navy without submarines (especially a small one like ours that has a huge coast to protect) is like a small army that decides sniper teams are a waste of resources without considering that both are potent force multipliers that provides a level of deterrence and kinetic potential that punches above its weight... I'd also suggest that both are harder to reinit when they're gone than they are to maintain.  

Edited November 13, 2025 by Venandi

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Venandi said:

I'm not sure what that means. Are you suggesting that no one supports it then?

I'm suggesting its supported for more partisan short-term reasons that serve to get political parties elected.

Submarines seem like very expensive baskets for a very limited number of eggs. They also seem prone to technological advancements of countermeasures to them, especially in light of how long it'll take to acquire them. By the time we do they'll be well on the road to redundancy.

3 hours ago, Venandi said:

As it stands, any potential aggressor(even in low-level events like fishery disputes) is forced to consider the presence (or possible presence) of submarine(s) and take the appropriate precautions.

LMAO! Take my word for it the biggest threat to our fisheries is DFO.

3 hours ago, Venandi said:

I'd also suggest that both are harder to reinit when they're gone than they are to maintain.  

That goes for aggressors too don't forget.

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

I'm suggesting its supported for more partisan short-term reasons that serve to get political parties elected.

Submarines seem like very expensive baskets for a very limited number of eggs. They also seem prone to technological advancements of countermeasures to them, especially in light of how long it'll take to acquire them. By the time we do they'll be well on the road to redundancy.

LMAO! Take my word for it the biggest threat to our fisheries is DFO.

That goes for aggressors too don't forget.

I'd be interested in what source you are using that states Sub's are on they're on the way out...I mean Subs came to light in 1775, and in all that time we have not been able to find a weapons system that would do just that make subs obsolete...

same can be said for tanks, IFV's, planes , ships....and yet here we are today still operating all of them...

 

[eyeball]

47 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I'd be interested in what source you are using that states Sub's are on they're on the way out...I mean Subs came to light in 1775, and in all that time we have not been able to find a weapons system that would do just that make subs obsolete...

same can be said for tanks, IFV's, planes , ships....and yet here we are today still operating all of them...

 

AI and drones aren't expected to change that?

I came across a remote piloted 'boat' last summer, it was more like a stand up paddle-board with equipment, cameras and antennas. It turned and stayed oriented towards me as I went around it.  It was apparently being operated by a local university for research.

It could have been filled with fentanyl for all I know though.

Edited November 13, 2025 by eyeball

[herbie]

Subs can travel beneath the Arctic ice more easily than smashing through it. About the only advantage. Otherwise sneaking about stealthily is not the highest priority from a defensive stance. Knowing you're coming to defend your border seems far more effective than just popping up out of nowhere with no notice and limiting both party's choices of how to proceed.

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

AI and drones aren't expected to change that?

I came across a remote piloted 'boat' last summer, it was more like a stand up paddle-board with equipment, cameras and antennas. It turned and stayed oriented towards me as I went around it.  It was apparently being operated by a local university for research.

It could have been filled with fentanyl for all I know though.

Your making my point here, Manned subs, ships are always going to play a major role in Naval combat, that much the Canadian Naval commander has made clear.......drones are going to play roles as well, but they at this time and into the future are not going to make Manned Subs obsolete. 

[Army Guy]

5 minutes ago, herbie said:

Subs can travel beneath the Arctic ice more easily than smashing through it. About the only advantage. Otherwise sneaking about stealthily is not the highest priority from a defensive stance. Knowing you're coming to defend your border seems far more effective than just popping up out of nowhere with no notice and limiting both party's choices of how to proceed.

Again not sure where your getting your info from, why would the Naval commander put into the specs of these new subs that they be able to operate under the artic ice....If they have NO defensive stance....Subs are a major tool in the navies tool box to respond to threats or to conduct naval operations in the all 3 oceans. 

Not sure what you mean by limiting both parties choices on how to proceed....i if you mean escalate to the point of a engagement, and risk WWIII you severely under estimate the commander of the sub decision making skills.. lots of things would have to go bad before it got to that point.

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Your making my point here, Manned subs, ships are always going to play a major role in Naval combat, that much the Canadian Naval commander has made clear.......drones are going to play roles as well, but they at this time and into the future are not going to make Manned Subs obsolete. 

Until the day drones worth even a hundred thousand dollars each start taking out subs and ships worth a couple of billion each.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I'd be interested in what source you are using that states Sub's are on they're on the way out...I mean Subs came to light in 1775, and in all that time we have not been able to find a weapons system that would do just that make subs obsolete...

same can be said for tanks, IFV's, planes , ships....and yet here we are today still operating all of them...

 

I may be wrong but my understanding of the whole submarine thing is that the largest advantage to having them would be surveillance and monitoring our waters even in peace time. I'm sure they have valid military applications but I knew a Submariner once and I've read a number of documents which suggest that the peacetime Maritime surveillance element of a submarine Is a prime reason to purchase them regardless of any potential military application. At least in the past anyway. And that does have the ring of truth to me

[herbie]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

If they have NO defensive stance

Not what I'm addressing. I'm talking about being seen coming as an advance warning. Obvious a commercial ship won't see a submerged submarine anyways. 

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I may be wrong but my understanding of the whole submarine thing is that the largest advantage to having them would be surveillance and monitoring our waters even in peace time. I'm sure they have valid military applications but I knew a Submariner once and I've read a number of documents which suggest that the peacetime Maritime surveillance element of a submarine Is a prime reason to purchase them regardless of any potential military application. At least in the past anyway. And that does have the ring of truth to me

Don't get me wrong, i know jack shit about the navy, been on a frigate once to do amphibious landings, and i did not like it...But i do have full confidence in the senior naval commander choices....Surveillance is one of their big missions, along with landing spec ops, anti ship, anti under water infra structure, like cables, pipelines, etc...launching Ballistic missiles as in the KSIII,  they make up a huge range of capabilities most of them are mentioned in their bios for the two boats we are looking at.....

[WestCanMan]

On 11/3/2025 at 10:41 AM, bush_cheney2004 said:

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

As if that needed to be said 🤣

Not even herbie would say that Canada was building more naval vessels than the US.

I would bet that the US builds more naval vessels, by tonnage, in one average year, than Canada does in 2 average decades. 

I think we build/acquire an avg of about 4 "destroyers" every 15 years and 3 small subs every 30 years. 

China built more, in terms of tonnage, in the past 3 years, than Canada has ever had. 

Edited November 14, 2025 by WestCanMan

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Until the day drones worth even a hundred thousand dollars each start taking out subs and ships worth a couple of billion each.

Sure anti drone tech is progressing just as fast as drone tech is.. new shot gun rounds, electronics jammers, radar guided Auto cannons, small missiles design for drones, even anti drone drones that hunt other drones and fire shotgun rounds or explode when close to other drones, they even use fishing nets/ blankets, cam nets,  to trap them....steel cages on tanks...the poor soldier on the ground will always find something...even lasers are now knocking out drones... 

They said the same thing about tanks when the anti tank missile came out...tanks days are numbered....then someone invented explosive armor, smoke with metallic strips in it...spaced armor etc ....and we still produce tanks by the thousands....

Right now the Canadian army is looking at them for recce to see what is around the next corner, or over enemy positions, the same thing for the navy they are looking at replacing men on dangerous assignment like mine removal, or patrol a heavily contested area...

The military is spending huge amounts of money on research to defend against drones to protect those bil machines...

[eyeball]

On 11/12/2025 at 12:28 AM, bush_cheney2004 said:

Just wanted to add that Canada was a pioneer in gas turbine propulsion for frigates and destroyers going back to the late 1960's.  The Iroquois Class was very innovative in this regard and many other nations jumped onboard this trend.  So Canada has led the way in the past.

You're an old submariner if I recall, what's your sense of how submarines and drones would fare against one another, especially when considering the cost?

[Venandi]

4 hours ago, herbie said:

.... sneaking about stealthily is not the highest priority from a defensive stance.

Stealth is synonymous with submarines, that's exactly what makes them a force multiplier. From any aggressors point of view, even the threat of a "possible presence" demands attention.

This has a huge deterrent effect simply because an ASW plan (and allocated resources) has to be part of any rational threat assessment, every maneuver undertaken needs to be considered in that context.... and since they really are a threat, that's way more than a simple mental exercise with no consequences attached to getting it wrong. 

 

Edited November 14, 2025 by Venandi