News   Apr 25, 2024
Wyse Meter Solutions Encouraging Sustainability Through Submetering Technology
 436     0 
News   Apr 25, 2024
News Roundup for April 25, 2024
 448     0 
News   Apr 25, 2024
How It Started
 662     0 

Canada and the World

kEiThZ said:
Yes. But we've got lots of provinces with no regular land forces. This is not normally an issue. It only becomes an issue if you don't have the lift to move in an emergency.
Click to expand...
True, but it (BC, particularly the lower mainland) is an area of significant population and a high potential area for seismic impact and separated from the rest of the country by a spine that could easily disrupt access, including airports. I suppose PEI and NL are in a somewhat similar boat, just a smaller population.
 
lenaitch said:
True, but it (BC, particularly the lower mainland) is an area of significant population and a high potential area for seismic impact and separated from the rest of the country by a spine that could easily disrupt access, including airports. I suppose PEI and NL are in a somewhat similar boat, just a smaller population.
Click to expand...
The point of having heavy lift helicopters and strategic lift aircraft is that we can create our own makeshift operating fields, even if the existing airfields are destroyed. Or even quickly restore damaged fields. CAF Airfield Engineers and Combat Engineers are trained for this.
 
The Globe and Mail out with an Editorial in support of a new, conventional sub fleet for Canada.

They articulate a case of a fleet of subs (they specifically say the current fleet of 4 is half the required size)

Also suggested is that in order to achieve timely delivery at an affordable price, the subs will have to be off-the-shelf and w/o a Canadian construction/assembly component.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...le-the-unsinkable-case-for-buying-submarines/ (paywalled)
 
Last edited:
Can't claim to be serious about the Arctic without subs. It's even debatable how much one can do in the Arctic without nuclear subs. But this is a start.

Our foreign policy actually requires 10 subs minimum. 3 each on the Pacific and Atlantic to generate 1-2 fleet escorts as an allied contribution. And 4 for the Arctic to persistently field 2 patrols.
 
Northern Light said:
The Globe and Mail out with an Editorial in support of a new, conventional sub fleet for Canada.

They articulate a case of a fleet of subs (they specifically say the current fleet of 4 is half the required size)

Also suggested is that in order to achieve timely delivery at an affordable price, the subs will have to be off-the-shelf and w/o a Canadian construction/assembly component.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...le-the-unsinkable-case-for-buying-submarines/ (paywalled)
Click to expand...
Submarine design and construction is highly specialized. It would make no sense to try and build such capability from scratch for such a small fleet (and don't even think about export sales). Having said that, no doubt Bombardier would probably say they are being overlooked and should be given a chance to bid.
 
One would think if we were to acquire 10+ subs, it almost might require a domestic industry. Is there that much spare ship-building capacity to get 8-10 subs in a timely fashion?

10 subs would put us in the same league as UK, France, Germany. The US has 68, so 10 would be proportionately more than the US (by population), as the US is ~8x Canada's population. Of course, raw numbers don't tell the story.

Given that Canada needs to pick and choose which areas to invest in serious capability, subs and aircraft make sense to me in terms of asserting sovereignty.
 
afransen said:
One would think if we were to acquire 10+ subs, it almost might require a domestic industry. Is there that much spare ship-building capacity to get 8-10 subs in a timely fashion?

10 subs would put us in the same league as UK, France, Germany. The US has 68, so 10 would be proportionately more than the US (by population), as the US is ~8x Canada's population. Of course, raw numbers don't tell the story.

Given that Canada needs to pick and choose which areas to invest in serious capability, subs and aircraft make sense to me in terms of asserting sovereignty.
Click to expand...
Being in the same league as those countries might sound impressive but I'd argue it's where we should be. We have the most coastline in the world, a huge arctic archipelago, and a top 10 global economy. Plus at approaching 40 million, our population isn't insignificant either. Our navy really should be among the bigger players.
 
MisterF said:
Being in the same league as those countries might sound impressive but I'd argue it's where we should be. We have the most coastline in the world, a huge arctic archipelago, and a top 10 global economy. Plus at approaching 40 million, our population isn't insignificant either. Our navy really should be among the bigger players.
Click to expand...
Sure. I don't disagree. 8-10 subs sounds reasonable to me, as this is one of the capabilities that Canada should prioritize. I'm more skeptical about things like aircraft carriers--I don't really see how it makes sense for Canada to acquire that capability. We're not really in the business of projecting force beyond missions lead by the US.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
We don't seem to think with national security considerations in mind.

AoD
Click to expand...

It's amazing how many times the Americans had to ask about this. And even offer to buy it. And yet all kinds of government officials and politicians strut around talking about how we're an Arctic nation and how much we care about Arctic security. Yet, there was nobody that even recognized the national security implications of losing control of a hangar and put a stop to it. We aren't a serious country.
 
kEiThZ said:
We aren't a serious country.
Click to expand...

In a nutshell this is everything wrong w/the above poster's takes.

To reduce a single questionable choice; though really, not nearly as questionable as made out..........to the whole country is 'not serious' is genuinely offensive and ridiculous

Lets be clear, the hangar was domestically owned.

The owner reported interested from China, and Russia; the gov't made clear they wouldn't allow such a sale.

The hangar was taken off the market, and not available to said sources.

Done, really, maybe not fair to the owner, but no strategic threat whatsoever.

Moreover, as was demonstrated during the pandemic, for better or worse, gov't here is perfectly capable of exerting control if it wishes.

The idea that we must own this private real estate of which we have no need, rather that simply passing a long saying no foreign entity may have 'control' over said space is so much nonsense.

We can, by means of legislation preserve any access we require and preclude any that is problematic.
 
Countries that profess to care about their sovereignty don't require repeated prompting from an ally to deal with an issue that is this straightforward. Most would have rules already in place to not even have the possibility of hostile foreign powers owning sensitive or critical national infrastructure.

And I would think a hostile foreign power getting a hangar literally next door (you can see it on Google Maps and Earth) to the only NORAD Forward Operating Location in the Arctic Circle would a bit of a strategic concern to any country that claims to be serious about Arctic sovereignty. Hangar in question on the left. NORAD FOL on the right.

maps.app.goo.gl

68°18'29.3"N 133°28'30.9"W · Inuvik, NT X0E 0T0, Canada

Inuvik, NT X0E 0T0, Canada
maps.app.goo.gl maps.app.goo.gl

We're not a serious country. We just play one on TV occasionally....
 
Every serious country has their Head of Government camping in the Head of State's cottage while the HoG official residence is falling apart with dead rodents in the wall. This is surely how all the G7 countries do it.

www.theglobeandmail.com

Once-prestigious 24 Sussex full of rodents, carcasses, National Capital Commission says

After 60 years of mounting repairs, the commission moved the final group of staff out of 24 Sussex Drive last year for health and safety reasons
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top