A Canadian SSN submarine fleet?

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

In my opinion, this decision by Australia had been simmering in the background for if not months, then ever since the contract was signed in 2016 between the Australian government and DCNS France for 12 French Barracuda Block 1A diesel submarines. Little by little DCNS seemed to be pulling back on the agreement WRT technology transfers, enormous cost increases and other demands by DCNS and the French government. The Australian government had enough and made the decision to cancel the project altogether. To be fair though, Australia obviously had been in secret negotiations with both the United States and United Kingdom for this nuclear technology transfer many months ago and the Pact was then finally solidified and published. 8 nuclear attack submarines are to be built for Australia in Australia. Whether it be Astute-class or Virginia-class boats is not yet clear. The French are naturally very upset by this seemingly surprising decision and caught other non-allied states “off-guard”. Will this give Canada new momentum to make a deal with the US to also transfer its nuclear technology to Canada? Remember 1987 when Canada tried to buy Trafalgar class SSNs from the UK? If the US and UK were willing to share their nuclear technology with Australia to create a triad pact of three nuclear powers, then perhaps it is time for Canada to re-visit the nuclear submarine option as well, and barter a deal for this technology for a 5 eyes pact. If this could be done, perhaps a better deal could be reached between the United States and/or the United Kingdom for an 8-10 Virginia/Astute class Canadian submarine fleet. These subs would be SSN only attack boats with no nuclear weapons capabilities and would give Canada a great option for Arctic surveillance and ISR capabilities well into the 21st century. Something to consider for the RCN Submarine Project just announced.

The French government has immediately recalled their Ambassador to the US amid the Australian governments decision to cancel the DCNS Barracuda Block 1A 12 boat submarine deal reached in 2016. Recalling an Ambassador from any country, especially with an allied partner, is not taken lightly and is a "big deal" for any country to do. The French government has said that it felt "betrayed" when the Australian government pulled out of their existing $90B AUD ($65B USD) multi-billion dollar defence deal. The new trilateral partnership with Australia, United States, United Kingdom (AUKUS). Australia indicated that the decision to cancel the French DCNS deal and go with an all nuclear SSN submarine was not made lightly and was made based on the best interests Australia's national security. The fallout from this decision will be felt for months or even years to come.

France recalls its ambassadors to the US and Australia over new national security partnership

 

[Ted Barnes]

In my opinion, this decision by Australia had been simmering in the background for if not months, then ever since the contract was signed in 2016 between the Australian government and DNCS France for 12 French Barracuda Block 1A diesel submarines. Little by little DNCS seemed to be pulling back on the agreement WRT technology transfers, enormous cost increases and other demands by DNCS and the French government. The Australian government had enough and made the decision to cancel the project altogether. To be fair though, Australia obviously had been in secret negotiations with both the United States and United Kingdom for this nuclear technology transfer many months ago and the Pact was then finally solidified and published. 8 nuclear attack submarines are to be built for Australia in Australia. Whether it be Astute-class or Virginia-class boats is not yet clear. The French are naturally very upset by this seemingly surprising decision and caught other non-allied states “off-guard”. Will this give Canada new momentum to make a deal with the US to also transfer its nuclear technology to Canada? Remember 1987 when Canada tried to buy Trafalgar class SSNs from the UK? If the US and UK were willing to share their nuclear technology with Australia to create a triad pact of three nuclear powers, then perhaps it is time for Canada to re-visit the nuclear submarine option as well, and barter a deal for this technology for a 5 eyes pact. If this could be done, perhaps a better deal could be reached between the United States and/or the United Kingdom for an 8-10 Virginia/Astute class Canadian submarine fleet. These subs would be SSN only attack boats with no nuclear weapons capabilities and would give Canada a great option for Arctic surveillance and ISR capabilities well into the 21st century. Something to consider for the RCN Submarine Project just announced.

Absolutely not. Trudeau has already closed the door on buying nuclear submarines and any successive government will not be able to sell it to the public. There's plenty of good reasons why we were shut out of the pact as well. I highly doubt even if we somehow had a change of public opinion and wanted to buy them, we would be turned down.

 

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

Absolutely not. Trudeau has already closed the door on buying nuclear submarines and any successive government will not be able to sell it to the public. There's plenty of good reasons why we were shut out of the pact as well. I highly doubt even if we somehow had a change of public opinion and wanted to buy them, we would be turned down.

Your opinion Ted, and you are entitled to it, but....you could be wrong this time.

 

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

Absolutely not. Trudeau has already closed the door on buying nuclear submarines and any successive government will not be able to sell it to the public. There's plenty of good reasons why we were shut out of the pact as well. I highly doubt even if we somehow had a change of public opinion and wanted to buy them, we would be turned down.

Canada was not even part of the discussions when the AUKUS deal was struck. Nor should we have been. This was not a Canadian decision but an Australian decision for their own security in partnership with the US & UK. Let's just wait and see what discussions may or may not be made between Canada and the US before we put the "Cart Before The Horse". It will be up to the RCNs Submarine Projects final decision they make to the government that counts, and not what we discuss in any military forum.

 

[Ted Barnes]

Your opinion and you are entitled to it, but....you could be wrong this time.

I don't think so, anything nuclear in submarines or warships will not be politically acceptable to any current or future government. I base that on the history of nuclear procurement attempts in Canada and statements made by the current government. It is highly unlikely that will ever change.

 

[Ted Barnes]

Canada was not even part of the discussions when the AUKUS deal was struck. Nor should we have been. This was not a Canadian decision but an Australian decision for their own security in partnership with the US & UK. Let's just wait and see what discussions may or may not be made between Canada and the US before we put the "Cart Before The Horse". It will be up to the RCNs Submarine Projects final decision they make to the government that counts, and not what we discuss in any military forum.

As it stands right now this AUKUS alliance has upset a lot of people including members of the five eyes. It is entirely conceivable that this alliance is in jeopardy behind the scenes and very telling that Canada was not even consulted.

 

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

I don't think so, anything nuclear in submarines or warships will not be politically acceptable to any current or future government. I base that on the history of nuclear procurement attempts in Canada and statements made by the current government. It is highly unlikely that will ever change.

We shall see.

 

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

As it stands right now this AUKUS alliance has upset a lot of people including members of the five eyes. It is entirely conceivable that this alliance is in jeopardy behind the scenes and very telling that Canada was not even consulted.

which member/members of the five eyes that are "upset" are you talking about since the AUSCANZUKUS five eyes alliance consists of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom and the United States and how do you know that Canada was not consulted before this announcement? Can you quote your assumptions?

 

[Nilgiri]

Interesting paper to read from 2019:

https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/405/305/hlibchuk.pdf

It is the references/bibliography of such that I tend to find more interesting when I delve into such topics in earlier years. Alas, time is increasingly short for me to do so recently.

 

[Ted Barnes]

which member/members of the five eyes that are "upset" are you talking about since the AUSCANZUKUS five eyes alliance consists of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom and the United States and how do you know that Canada was not consulted before this announcement? Can you quote your assumptions?

Many groups are upset, France for obvious reasons, the EU, China, North Korea for instance, this alliance many well further destabilize things over there. NZ apparently was consulted, Canada wasn't and they probably wouldn't complain publicly although it really empathizes where we stand with other nations.

Canada caught off guard by new security pact between U.S., Australia and Britain

Three officials, representing Canada’s foreign affairs, intelligence and defence departments, say Ottawa was not consulted about the deal

www.theglobeandmail.com

It depends on who you want to believe.

 

[Nilgiri]

As it stands right now this AUKUS alliance has upset a lot of people including members of the five eyes. It is entirely conceivable that this alliance is in jeopardy behind the scenes and very telling that Canada was not even consulted.

which member/members of the five eyes that are "upset" are you talking about since the AUSCANZUKUS five eyes alliance consists of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom and the United States and how do you know that Canada was not consulted before this announcement? Can you quote your assumptions?

In my opinion....there’s little chance at Canada joining a larger SSN program without a suitable large carrot and/or stick from the US.

But maybe the US will provide that extra impetus going forward, we shall see.

First a better mechanism needs to be squared away regarding the whole arctic waters issue between US and Canada.

If US "violates" Canadian domain here, they are doing a pretty bad job since they keep telling Canada about it too. They keep submitting requests to the Arctic SUBOPAUTH in NDHQ....big bro stuff I guess.

The big reason that some Canadians want SSNs is Arctic water distance from our major RCN ports (Europe cross-atlantic is actually closer to halifax than the arctic).

The new AOPS however does a better job at Arctic presence and.... keeps a vital Liberal seat op….is good for the national economy.

There’s also the larger budgeting issue I have seen....large parts of the RCN specifically and the CF generally won’t want most of the defence budget put into the SSN budget.

(TIFWIW)

 

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

Many groups are upset, France for obvious reasons, the EU, China, North Korea for instance, this alliance many well further destabilize things over there. NZ apparently was consulted, Canada wasn't and they probably wouldn't complain publicly although it really empathizes where we stand with other nations.

Canada caught off guard by new security pact between U.S., Australia and Britain

Three officials, representing Canada’s foreign affairs, intelligence and defence departments, say Ottawa was not consulted about the deal

www.theglobeandmail.com

It depends on who you want to believe.

Sorry Ted, I cannot read the article as I do not subscribe to The Globe & Mail

 

[Ted Barnes]

Sorry Ted, I cannot read the article as I do not subscribe to The Globe & Mail

Neither do I .

Here you go


"The Canadian government was surprised this week by the announcement of a new security pact between the United States, Britain and Australia, one that excluded Canada and is aimed at confronting China’s growing military and political influence in the Indo-Pacific region, according to senior government officials.

Three officials, representing Canada’s foreign affairs, intelligence and defence departments, told The Globe and Mail that Ottawa was not consulted about the pact, and had no idea the trilateral security announcement was coming until it was made on Wednesday by U.S. President Joe Biden, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison."

 

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

I don't think so, anything nuclear in submarines or warships will not be politically acceptable to any current or future government. I base that on the history of nuclear procurement attempts in Canada and statements made by the current government. It is highly unlikely that will ever change.

"anything nuclear in submarines or warships will not be politically acceptable to any current or future government"
This government for sure, but "future governments"? Don't be so sure of that!