Canadian Foreign Policy & Affairs II

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

A view from the UK on the vapidness of "Soft Power" that is so often the hall mark of Canada's Foreign "Policy"

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-fallacy-...cid=80a249131f

The world has absolutely changed.

Peacekeeping has been dying for the last 20 years, and, now rigor mortis has set in. You need to have cooperative belligerents to have peacekeeping work. Other types of diplomacy and soft power have also lost their persuasive appeal. We are entering a world where a "big stick" is more important than anything else.

Canada currently has a floppy twig.................

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Interesting to see South Korea mentioned in the article as a potential future member too. I can't help but wonder if there's potential for AUKUS pillar 2 to serve as a forum for Japan, South Korea and Canada to cooperate on lithium ion sub tech advancement, if all manage to join.

Japan's and South Korea's Soryu and KSS-III subs are impressive, and I'm sure both will be pitched to Canada for its sub replacement program.

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Admiral Topshee has openly asked for a Sub replacement program as has the Senate defence committee. The Government however is probably putting what little effort they have into probably seeing if they can dump Subs altogether.

Staff work on a sub replacement was started years ago. The naval staff have had discussions and visits with several shipbuilders in Asia and Europe. It's out of the military's hands now.

I believe the government's hesitation (and decision paralysis) is driven by a desire to avoid spending billions outside Canada (likely without offsets), but any contract inside Canada would be as expensive as the CSC program or more, since we don't have the capacity to build subs, and that would have to be built up.

[MonctonRad]

We should go offshore with the sub purchase.

The CSC makes sense because it is important to maintain a national shipbuilding capability. We can sustain a couple of shipyards just on government contracts (navy, coast guard, fisheries vessels, research ships and possibly ferries).

Subs are an entirely different matter. We don't have the operational requirements for a fulltime submarine building shipyard.

[goodgrowth]

Damn, the US is kinda being invaded:

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/statu...96752779874585

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

Damn, the US is kinda being invaded:

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/statu...96752779874585

Lots of Military aged males in that crowd. Lots. This is going to be THE primary issue for the November election.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

Damn, the US is kinda being invaded:

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/statu...96752779874585

That might make Biden look bad.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Staff work on a sub replacement was started years ago. The naval staff have had discussions and visits with several shipbuilders in Asia and Europe. It's out of the military's hands now.

I believe the government's hesitation (and decision paralysis) is driven by a desire to avoid spending billions outside Canada (likely without offsets), but any contract inside Canada would be as expensive as the CSC program or more, since we don't have the capacity to build subs, and that would have to be built up.

Have you heard if Treasury Board has discussed this program?

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Lots of Military aged males in that crowd. Lots. This is going to be THE primary issue for the November election.

The Democrats have an Achilles heel and this is it. They had better tread very carefully.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Have you heard if Treasury Board has discussed this program?

Not on this one. But even if I did, I most definitely would not posting be posting that here. Lol

They won't make a TB submission before they know what the government intention is. There's no point standing up a project and spending thousands of man hours developing specs, project and procurement plans if the government won't support it. TB submissions aren't normally done without the concurrence of three ministers for major capital projects:

1) Defence Minister for requirements and project plans
2) Procurement Minister for proposed procurement plan and contract strategy
3) Industry Minister for the industrial and regional benefits strategy.

Generally a project office isn't stood up unless MND supports it, so #1 will always sign. #2 always sign unless we propose some crazy contractual agreement. #3 is usually the problem. And if no resolution can be had then an appeal can be made to override #3. And this isn't a current government problem. I experienced the above during the Harper years. This is just how the process works.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Not on this one. But even if I did, I most definitely would not posting be posting that here. Lol

They won't make a TB submission before they know what the government intention is. There's no point standing up a project and spending thousands of man hours developing specs, project and procurement plans if the government won't support it. TB submissions aren't normally done without the concurrence of three ministers for major capital projects:

1) Defence Minister for requirements and project plans
2) Procurement Minister for proposed procurement plan and contract strategy
3) Industry Minister for the industrial and regional benefits strategy.

Generally a project office isn't stood up unless MND supports it, so #1 will always sign. #2 always sign unless we propose some crazy contractual agreement. #3 is usually the problem. And if no resolution can be had then an appeal can be made to override #3. And this isn't a current government problem. I experienced the above during the Harper years. This is just how the process works.

So future Canadian submarines are just a long ways off. A new Government that made that commitment would chip away at 2% pretty quick.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

So future Canadian submarines are just a long ways off. A new Government that made that commitment would chip away at 2% pretty quick.

Not sure how that would chip away at 2% quick unless we buy them all overseas and in a short amount of time. And once that purchase is done, we'll be back down to lower levels. This is indeed why a government might choose to build at home and pay more. The higher domestic purchase price moves us closer to 2% while keeping the spending at home.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Not sure how that would chip away at 2% quick unless we buy them all overseas and in a short amount of time. And once that purchase is done, we'll be back down to lower levels. This is indeed why a government might choose to build at home and pay more. The higher domestic purchase price moves us closer to 2% while keeping the spending at home.

Sub steel would certainly be a large learning curve to perfect and no doubt expensive. If We were to build in Canada it would have to be conventional Boats despite the obvious need for Nukes.

It would not surprise me that in the future Canada gets pressured into reconstituting the 4th CMBG in Latvia. Its not where you think modern warfare is going but we may have to include a Drone battalion and leave tube artillery back in Canada. Time will tell.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Sub steel would certainly be a large learning curve to perfect and no doubt expensive. If We were to build in Canada it would have to be conventional Boats despite the obvious need for Nukes.

The Australians don't have a nuclear power plant and they are setting up to build nuclear submarines. Anything is possible with money and access to technology. If we really wanted nukes, we could have the same deal.

Originally Posted by Dartguard

It would not surprise me that in the future Canada gets pressured into reconstituting the 4th CMBG in Latvia. Its not where you think modern warfare is going but we may have to include a Drone battalion and leave tube artillery back in Canada. Time will tell.

One of the problems with watching the Ukraine war is that people learn the wrong lessons from watching a technologically limited combatants. Nobody in NATO is doing drone battalions, because we won't be fighting in static lines chucking drones at each other. Rather drones at being integrated at the platoon, company, brigade and division level so that each unit has a drone capability it can use.

As for artillery, go look what a GPS guided Excalibur artillery round can do at 50 km from a Swedish Archer and then tell me it's useless. The only problem with our artillery is that it's not mounted, and that is a project that is underway right now.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The Australians don't have a nuclear power plant and they are setting up to build nuclear submarines. Anything is possible with money and access to technology. If we really wanted nukes, we could have the same deal.

....

I thought the subs were to be built in the USA and the UK.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I thought the subs were to be built in the USA and the UK.

Joint UK-Australia project for SSN-AUKUS. American involvement is largely about providing certain items like the Virginia payload module and providing an interim submarine capability.

Australia's SSN-AUKUS submarines will be built in Adelaide, South Australia.

Enabling works will begin in 2023 at the future submarine construction yard in Osborne. The yard will be almost 3 times larger than the yard forecast for the Attack Class program.

https://www.asa.gov.au/aukus/constru...outh-australia

Australia and the UK selected defense manufacturers BAE Systems Plc and ASC Pty Ltd to build a fleet of next generation nuclear-powered submarines that are expected to be deployed in the 2040s, the latest step in the Aukus security pact.
...
As part of that infrastructure upgrade, Australia will provide £2.4 billion ($3.1 billion) over 10 years to help modernize the UK’s industrial base. It previously pledged to invest $3 billion in US industry as part of the Aukus program.
...

UK, Australia Pick BAE to Build Aukus Nuclear Sub Fleet https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ubmarine-fleet

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Joint UK-Australia project for SSN-AUKUS. American involvement is largely about providing certain items like the Virginia payload module and providing an interim submarine capability.



https://www.asa.gov.au/aukus/constru...outh-australia



UK, Australia Pick BAE to Build Aukus Nuclear Sub Fleet https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ubmarine-fleet

Great, maybe the UK will have some more secondhand subs to sell us!

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Great, maybe the UK will have some more secondhand subs to sell us!

Maybe a bulk purchase with an aircraft carrier too

[casper]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I thought the subs were to be built in the USA and the UK.

I have not been following it that closely. It may have changed, but my understanding was the nuclear reactor was to be a sealed module manufactured in the UK or US and delivered to the Australian as a sealed module.

Not certain how much experience Australian industry has working with
Zirconium alloys. However given time, certain they will figure it out. It may be a bit more exotic, but its not that far out of norm. The calandria is much more tricky.

Australia has a very small reach reactor. However it is a open pool reactor they purchased from Argentina. Pressurized reactors are much more trickly to build.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Great, maybe the UK will have some more secondhand subs to sell us!

Everybody always assumes the Brits sold us a lemon. Nobody ever talks about the years we let the subs languish port side. Take a guess what happens when you leave something in salt water without regular maintenance, for years.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by casper

I have not been following it that closely. It may have changed, but my understanding was the nuclear reactor was to be a sealed module manufactured in the UK or US and delivered to the Australian as a sealed module.

Not certain how much experience Australian industry has working with
Zirconium alloys. However given time, certain they will figure it out. It may be a bit more exotic, but its not that far out of norm. The calandria is much more tricky.

Australia has a very small reach reactor. However it is a open pool reactor they purchased from Argentina. Pressurized reactors are much more trickly to build.

It's a bit ridiculous that a country without nuclear reactors (beyond an isotope plant) is going to have a nuclear submarine program and the home of CANDU can't do that.

On a related note, the French nuclear subs run on LEU, something AECL should be quite familiar with.