Appreciate this discussion series on the sub procurement, but if anyone is reading the comments and open to feedback, it'd be really helpful if you could indicate who was talking at a given time, it'd be super useful and make for a better watching experience.
@@chm985 I agree that’s a problem. We should have gotten into AUKUS immediately. That we didn’t was a major failure. Though the failures go further back than that. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union we’ve underfunded the military. Now we are paying the Piper and it ain’t pretty.
@@waynesworldofsci-tech Nuclear should have gone forward in the 80s. Then we could be planning the replacement now. Unfortunately, that didn't happen for many reasons. Aukus is going to be a disaster for Australia. It would have been for Canada as well.
@@chm985 It will be expensive, but not a disaster. Just curious, have you ever looked at world military spending? There’s a video on my channel, along with links to the data. Check the numbers for the top 30 militaries. We aren’t that badly off. Get us up to 2.00% quick, and we’d be fine. Unfortunately that would require a plan, something Canadian governments are terrible at.
It’s going to take another 10 years for Canada to even decide on on which conventional submarine to get , then they are going to add on their own specific specs which will delay procurement another 5 years then because of those add ones the subs will be in dry dock another 5 years then we they will decide they are in fact outdated and cancel the project , sound familiar , think about canadas helicopter acquisition
"Canada probably has the worst military procurement record in the entire world." Two points: 1.) It was worse under Harper. He overpaid for the F-35s; Trudeau paid to cancel the order, then got more planes for less money with guarantees that some of the parts would be made in Canada. The DeWolf class ships are under powered, under gunned, and overpriced and there's nothing that can be done about that. 2.) I know some people in Germany who would disagree.
@@BrotherAlpha The DeWolf class (named after a distant cousin) have room for upgrades. The base design was supposed to be flexible, and it is. Besides, these are more spy ships than anything else, look at the electronics fit.
Can AIP submarines be refueled with our existing replenishment ships at sea, so they can operate on NATO missions? Do we need to build arctic dry docks to refuel them? Some AIP systems use hydrogen as a fuel.
We just have to get to 2% of GDP and then the military can get back on a respectable capability at all the three services. We need to make it that the military capability must be maintained at a benchmark level.
@@allannantes8583 When the sub program hits the books, Canada will be over 2% of gdp spending as long as the next government doesn't cut military spending.
@@chm985we need 2% long before 2032 and I have no way of knowing who the next government will be, the only thing we know for sure is that an election can be no later than next fall. Military spending has to be at $60 billion per year based on current GDP of $3 trillion to be at 2%. Currently the order for new subs is supposed to be placed in 2028 it is hard to say when the first invoices will arrive. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer military spending is recorded whenever the invoices are paid. Here is a question to you, what does the liberal dumpster fire look like? All I know is the total debt has grown from $600 billion in 2015 to $1.2 Trillion presently and interest rates today are eating up a lot more of the government’s current annual budget than it was in 2015 to 2021 when the Bank of Canada rate was 0.25%. Also the new development today is untold billions more to be spent on Pharmacare but no indications as to what programs the liberal were going to cut to pay for that program. They also didn’t say what programs were going to be cut for all the recent announcements for all the spending that is to happen from 2024 to 2029 in order to bring the rate from 1.36% to 1.76% of GDP. So those cuts or a plan to pay for the increases has to be communicated to the next government. I suspect the liberals will talk about that in the federal campaign after the writ comes down. All I can only give you is the facts as I know them with the numbers I know. The liberals stated in April at the defense policy update that the spending announced on that day would not happen until after the next election. I found that to be conducive to a Prime Minister who felt that he wasn’t going to be in power after the next election. So my question to you is do the liberals plan to cut social programs or continue to run ever increasing deficits? This year’s deficit is going to be $55 billion. It is not much wonder the liberal’s ratings are so low.
Maybe Canada should pick up where Australia left of with the French? They would be large conventionally powered subs, but that's probably what Canada needs given the distances you'll be required to travel.
What a turn of events that would be. The French were originally trying to sell Australia on nuclear; Australia insisted on non-nuclear so the French redesigned what they were offering, and the deal was made. Then Australia reneged, and jumped with both feet into not only getting a US/UK sub deal instead, but nuclear to boot (with huge strings attached)! The French were rightfully very pissed off. However, France might be a choice for Canada IF we got nuclear subs and did not want those kind of AUKUS strings attached to it. The French would probably be grateful to have us choose their design. Not that it would be cheap either - France will pay something like 11 billion Euros for 6 Suffren class, so double that if we wanted 12, and double it again for Euros to Canadian dollars.
Nuclear subs are the dumbest idea ever, nothing more the propaganda from the military industrial complex. These generals barely worked 5 years in the careers and should go into retirement on the same courses they played while "working"....
As I see it call it layman's 2 cents worth, whatever (or since this is TL;DR maybe 10 cents) ... 1 - Canada has zero experience with a nuclear navy. The US & Russians have had perhaps hundreds of nuclear powered ships in their history to build that training & capacity. The UK and France and China, less so, but still decades of experience. Sure, we're not Australia, we have a civilian nuclear power industry already, but none of that is militarized. (Even civilian, you already need a masters' degree to be a nuclear reactors operator/engineer.) So Canada's navy (which already has trouble fulfilling recruitment goals) would need to recruit & train a lot of people who can reach both navy and nuclear standards, at least a dozen of those for each sub. And that could not be done within Canada's own navy, so they'd be spending years training on loan to the US, UK, or French Navy, on their subs. (As the guy said, imagine 30 years of building that readiness & nuclear culture.) 2- On the military- industrial side, there is a whole background to securely fuelling, operating & maintaining military nuclear reactors, which run on weapons-grade fuel by the way. The US has a whole nuclear industrial sector which is required to keep their nuclear navy running, not even including the nuclear weapons. Do we? Canada has uranium to mine, great - but do we have the other things, like ore refining, fuel reprocessing/upgrading rated to military (weapons-grade) standards, reactor vessel and systems manufacturing, on-base fuel & waste handling and so on? If the answer's no, then there too we'd have to rely on our allies. They would not have Canada's best interests in mind; altruism does not really exist when it comes to great powers. They could cut off our access at any time and our nuclear navy operations would cease. They might demand such control over our navy's technology & operations that we would essentially end up paying an enormous amount of money basically to have ships that are really just part of the US Navy but have Canadian crews. Speaking of which ... 3 - Fuck AUKUS. The Australians were fools, who sacrificed too much of their own military autonomy & sovereignty for the sake of signing that treaty and being "allowed" by the US and UK to have nuclear subs. Australia doesn't have to worry about being conquered anymore, because they just surrendered. Sure, you can try to pull that "allies card" or that ridiculous "Anglosphere" card, but at some point you have to ask at what point have you lost so much independence as a nation that even having an armed forces is pointless. (Just ask Gough Whitlam's ghost what your own allies might do to you.) Canadians all know (or all should) that we've only ever had one country that invaded us with the intent of conquest or annexation: the same one that says the northwest passage is not really ours; the same one whose [ex-]president was recently musing about forcibly taking Canada's fresh water. Even a so-called close ally cannot be trusted all the time. So why would you want to sign a deal that gives us nuclear subs, but at the cost of forever surrendering the right to use those subs & our navy when we (not they) choose to, and accepting foreign military bases on our soil? We're in treaties like NORAD and NATO (and Five Eyes), but we give help to our allies on the understanding that they will give help to us, not help themselves to what is ours. 4- The other political cost: Any military spending is a hard sell to begin with. It is a myth to believe the Canadian government is flush with cash, or that DND is the only department with a begging cup always in hand. ALL the departments & agencies & crown corporations have a budget crunch and needs that are going un-met, and a lot of those are held near & dear to Canadian hearts too, or have a national security component that also does us harm by being so threadbare already. Yes, most Canadians believe Canada needs subs for its navy, but that does not translate into a blank cheque. Nuclear will be far more expensive, so the question you need to ask is: do you want to end up with 8-12 subs (already a tough sell in tough times), or do you want to insist on nuclear and maybe end up with only 4 subs, or 2... or none? How much of a tax increase would you be happy to pay just to make sure Canada has a nuclear sub fleet? THAT is the political battle ahead. They do not call it "making hard choices" for no reason. 5 - Technologically, people are also pointing out how much other AIP technology like fuel cells is catching up rapidly in terms of capabilities; uch subs already exist that use hydrogen fuel cells (and they will only get more capable over time). Also there is the issue of how drone technology is changing military affairs - including undersea ship-killing drones, whose AI's might soon enable them to do entire voyages without the need for a human operator or intervention once they are launched. In light of this, "they" say we need nuclear subs to have the endurance & power to operate under the ice cap and so on, but that might prove an expensive moot point very soon. The fuel cell subs can already have enough endurance to last for any trip under the ice, or will have it soon. Drone subs might soon be able to all the same things under ice or across the deep ocean, and they do not need to supply any oxygen, for, or water, to keep human crew members alive. So If Canada is going to be throwing billions of dollars into an undersea war-fighting force, what is really the best bang for the buck, considering whatever decision we make it will be minimum 10-15 years later before it is operational & crewed, and who knows how short a time before it is obsolete?
Sounds like you work for the procrastination department of public opinion. You sound apply to the procurement department of the government. Just keep debating until a new technology is perfected or until it is too late and it won’t matter any more or wait until the new technology gets outdated because apparently their is something new coming down the pipe.
@@wyldhowl2821a bad idea is waiting until a paper submarine or close assimilation which only exits in concept only is (ie AI drones UUVs) something that can be ordered today and delivered tomorrow. A lot of government departments with their cups held out to be refilled need to realize that the federal budget pie needs to be re-cut and military has to be very close to the top of the list with an increase to 2% of GDP minimum without any tax increases.
@@allannantes8583 "without any tax increases" LOL. Sure, I guess all those defense contractors will get paid in crypto or magic beans. You must be from the "fuck Canada - the military exists to protect the oligarchs and their money from the ungrateful public" department.
Walk before you can run. How well did you manage the type 2400 diesel electric subs ??
I bet if we spent money competently on procurement, the recruiting issue wouldn't be nearly as bad.
Appreciate this discussion series on the sub procurement, but if anyone is reading the comments and open to feedback, it'd be really helpful if you could indicate who was talking at a given time, it'd be super useful and make for a better watching experience.
Thank you for your feedback. The small, but mighty digital content team is on it!
@@cdainstitute2893 Thanks!
YES! YES WE SHOULD HAVE THEM!!!!
Yes. The answer is yes. The Royal Canadian Navy deploys to every ocean. We need the range a nuke boat gives.
@@waynesworldofsci-tech we don't have the time. There is no choice but to get conventional first.
@@chm985
I agree that’s a problem. We should have gotten into AUKUS immediately. That we didn’t was a major failure.
Though the failures go further back than that. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union we’ve underfunded the military. Now we are paying the Piper and it ain’t pretty.
@@waynesworldofsci-tech Nuclear should have gone forward in the 80s. Then we could be planning the replacement now. Unfortunately, that didn't happen for many reasons. Aukus is going to be a disaster for Australia. It would have been for Canada as well.
@@chm985
It will be expensive, but not a disaster.
Just curious, have you ever looked at world military spending? There’s a video on my channel, along with links to the data. Check the numbers for the top 30 militaries. We aren’t that badly off. Get us up to 2.00% quick, and we’d be fine.
Unfortunately that would require a plan, something Canadian governments are terrible at.
I've tried to explain this exact same thing to so many people.
It’s going to take another 10 years for Canada to even decide on on which conventional submarine to get , then they are going to add on their own specific specs which will delay procurement another 5 years then because of those add ones the subs will be in dry dock another 5 years then we they will decide they are in fact outdated and cancel the project , sound familiar , think about canadas helicopter acquisition
@@woodpecker6452 No, it should be done in a couple of years. This process started years ago but has recently really picked up pace.
Canada probably has the worst military procurement record in the entire world.
Maybe we should get 2 nuclear subs, the rest could be conventional.
No. You need a minimum of three units to have one in deployable condition at any time because of maintenance and training cycles.
"Canada probably has the worst military procurement record in the entire world."
Two points:
1.) It was worse under Harper. He overpaid for the F-35s; Trudeau paid to cancel the order, then got more planes for less money with guarantees that some of the parts would be made in Canada. The DeWolf class ships are under powered, under gunned, and overpriced and there's nothing that can be done about that.
2.) I know some people in Germany who would disagree.
@@BrotherAlpha
The DeWolf class (named after a distant cousin) have room for upgrades. The base design was supposed to be flexible, and it is.
Besides, these are more spy ships than anything else, look at the electronics fit.
@@kimepp2216 canada doesn't have the time to get nuclear first or the budget to take on both programs at once
@@BrotherAlpha "Trudeau" never had to pay to cancel anything. There was no official order placed.
Can AIP submarines be refueled with our existing replenishment ships at sea, so they can operate on NATO missions? Do we need to build arctic dry docks to refuel them? Some AIP systems use hydrogen as a fuel.
Just fuel saving alone is worth it
The only reason Canada needs subs of any kind is so that our navy can do ASW exercises.
The Arctic environment makes regular naval operations including ASW challenging best option for that are submarines
@@jameson1239 nuclear submarines.
@@allannantes8583 yes
I don't trust Canadian Leadership.
We just have to get to 2% of GDP and then the military can get back on a respectable capability at all the three services. We need to make it that the military capability must be maintained at a benchmark level.
@@allannantes8583 When the sub program hits the books, Canada will be over 2% of gdp spending as long as the next government doesn't cut military spending.
@@chm985we need 2% long before 2032 and I have no way of knowing who the next government will be, the only thing we know for sure is that an election can be no later than next fall. Military spending has to be at $60 billion per year based on current GDP of $3 trillion to be at 2%. Currently the order for new subs is supposed to be placed in 2028 it is hard to say when the first invoices will arrive. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer military spending is recorded whenever the invoices are paid. Here is a question to you, what does the liberal dumpster fire look like? All I know is the total debt has grown from $600 billion in 2015 to $1.2 Trillion presently and interest rates today are eating up a lot more of the government’s current annual budget than it was in 2015 to 2021 when the Bank of Canada rate was 0.25%. Also the new development today is untold billions more to be spent on Pharmacare but no indications as to what programs the liberal were going to cut to pay for that program. They also didn’t say what programs were going to be cut for all the recent announcements for all the spending that is to happen from 2024 to 2029 in order to bring the rate from 1.36% to 1.76% of GDP. So those cuts or a plan to pay for the increases has to be communicated to the next government. I suspect the liberals will talk about that in the federal campaign after the writ comes down. All I can only give you is the facts as I know them with the numbers I know. The liberals stated in April at the defense policy update that the spending announced on that day would not happen until after the next election. I found that to be conducive to a Prime Minister who felt that he wasn’t going to be in power after the next election. So my question to you is do the liberals plan to cut social programs or continue to run ever increasing deficits? This year’s deficit is going to be $55 billion. It is not much wonder the liberal’s ratings are so low.
Maybe Canada should pick up where Australia left of with the French? They would be large conventionally powered subs, but that's probably what Canada needs given the distances you'll be required to travel.
Nope. Not enough range.
@@waynesworldofsci-techwell it was a modified version of France's nuclear sub so you could always go that way if you wanted.
@@justbecause3187
But we have a procurement process which is broken.
@@waynesworldofsci-techhuh? Are you sure about that?
What a turn of events that would be. The French were originally trying to sell Australia on nuclear; Australia insisted on non-nuclear so the French redesigned what they were offering, and the deal was made. Then Australia reneged, and jumped with both feet into not only getting a US/UK sub deal instead, but nuclear to boot (with huge strings attached)!
The French were rightfully very pissed off.
However, France might be a choice for Canada IF we got nuclear subs and did not want those kind of AUKUS strings attached to it. The French would probably be grateful to have us choose their design. Not that it would be cheap either - France will pay something like 11 billion Euros for 6 Suffren class, so double that if we wanted 12, and double it again for Euros to Canadian dollars.
Nuclear subs are the dumbest idea ever, nothing more the propaganda from the military industrial complex. These generals barely worked 5 years in the careers and should go into retirement on the same courses they played while "working"....
Considering that all our submarines either catch fire or sink, I'm gonna say, no.
As I see it call it layman's 2 cents worth, whatever (or since this is TL;DR maybe 10 cents) ...
1 - Canada has zero experience with a nuclear navy. The US & Russians have had perhaps hundreds of nuclear powered ships in their history to build that training & capacity. The UK and France and China, less so, but still decades of experience. Sure, we're not Australia, we have a civilian nuclear power industry already, but none of that is militarized. (Even civilian, you already need a masters' degree to be a nuclear reactors operator/engineer.) So Canada's navy (which already has trouble fulfilling recruitment goals) would need to recruit & train a lot of people who can reach both navy and nuclear standards, at least a dozen of those for each sub. And that could not be done within Canada's own navy, so they'd be spending years training on loan to the US, UK, or French Navy, on their subs. (As the guy said, imagine 30 years of building that readiness & nuclear culture.)
2- On the military- industrial side, there is a whole background to securely fuelling, operating & maintaining military nuclear reactors, which run on weapons-grade fuel by the way. The US has a whole nuclear industrial sector which is required to keep their nuclear navy running, not even including the nuclear weapons. Do we? Canada has uranium to mine, great - but do we have the other things, like ore refining, fuel reprocessing/upgrading rated to military (weapons-grade) standards, reactor vessel and systems manufacturing, on-base fuel & waste handling and so on? If the answer's no, then there too we'd have to rely on our allies. They would not have Canada's best interests in mind; altruism does not really exist when it comes to great powers. They could cut off our access at any time and our nuclear navy operations would cease. They might demand such control over our navy's technology & operations that we would essentially end up paying an enormous amount of money basically to have ships that are really just part of the US Navy but have Canadian crews. Speaking of which ...
3 - Fuck AUKUS. The Australians were fools, who sacrificed too much of their own military autonomy & sovereignty for the sake of signing that treaty and being "allowed" by the US and UK to have nuclear subs. Australia doesn't have to worry about being conquered anymore, because they just surrendered. Sure, you can try to pull that "allies card" or that ridiculous "Anglosphere" card, but at some point you have to ask at what point have you lost so much independence as a nation that even having an armed forces is pointless. (Just ask Gough Whitlam's ghost what your own allies might do to you.) Canadians all know (or all should) that we've only ever had one country that invaded us with the intent of conquest or annexation: the same one that says the northwest passage is not really ours; the same one whose [ex-]president was recently musing about forcibly taking Canada's fresh water. Even a so-called close ally cannot be trusted all the time. So why would you want to sign a deal that gives us nuclear subs, but at the cost of forever surrendering the right to use those subs & our navy when we (not they) choose to, and accepting foreign military bases on our soil? We're in treaties like NORAD and NATO (and Five Eyes), but we give help to our allies on the understanding that they will give help to us, not help themselves to what is ours.
4- The other political cost: Any military spending is a hard sell to begin with. It is a myth to believe the Canadian government is flush with cash, or that DND is the only department with a begging cup always in hand. ALL the departments & agencies & crown corporations have a budget crunch and needs that are going un-met, and a lot of those are held near & dear to Canadian hearts too, or have a national security component that also does us harm by being so threadbare already.
Yes, most Canadians believe Canada needs subs for its navy, but that does not translate into a blank cheque. Nuclear will be far more expensive, so the question you need to ask is: do you want to end up with 8-12 subs (already a tough sell in tough times), or do you want to insist on nuclear and maybe end up with only 4 subs, or 2... or none? How much of a tax increase would you be happy to pay just to make sure Canada has a nuclear sub fleet? THAT is the political battle ahead. They do not call it "making hard choices" for no reason.
5 - Technologically, people are also pointing out how much other AIP technology like fuel cells is catching up rapidly in terms of capabilities; uch subs already exist that use hydrogen fuel cells (and they will only get more capable over time). Also there is the issue of how drone technology is changing military affairs - including undersea ship-killing drones, whose AI's might soon enable them to do entire voyages without the need for a human operator or intervention once they are launched.
In light of this, "they" say we need nuclear subs to have the endurance & power to operate under the ice cap and so on, but that might prove an expensive moot point very soon. The fuel cell subs can already have enough endurance to last for any trip under the ice, or will have it soon. Drone subs might soon be able to all the same things under ice or across the deep ocean, and they do not need to supply any oxygen, for, or water, to keep human crew members alive. So If Canada is going to be throwing billions of dollars into an undersea war-fighting force, what is really the best bang for the buck, considering whatever decision we make it will be minimum 10-15 years later before it is operational & crewed, and who knows how short a time before it is obsolete?
Sounds like you work for the procrastination department of public opinion. You sound apply to the procurement department of the government. Just keep debating until a new technology is perfected or until it is too late and it won’t matter any more or wait until the new technology gets outdated because apparently their is something new coming down the pipe.
@@allannantes8583 On the contrary. I'm saying don't waste limited time and money on a bad idea that doesn't pass the common sense test.
@@wyldhowl2821a bad idea is waiting until a paper submarine or close assimilation which only exits in concept only is (ie AI drones UUVs) something that can be ordered today and delivered tomorrow. A lot of government departments with their cups held out to be refilled need to realize that the federal budget pie needs to be re-cut and military has to be very close to the top of the list with an increase to 2% of GDP minimum without any tax increases.
@@allannantes8583 "without any tax increases" LOL. Sure, I guess all those defense contractors will get paid in crypto or magic beans.
You must be from the "fuck Canada - the military exists to protect the oligarchs and their money from the ungrateful public" department.
Why did you do a cut and paste from episode #3? This is not new material!!!
Canada needs nuclear subs but there is no build capacity in Canada nor the USA.
The USA could find the capacity somewhere if we pay them
@@jameson1239 Latest info says USA has no spare sub build nor even repair capacity
@@JLindsay-v8v they are working to fix that very fast.
I wouldn't want to be trapped under the ice inside a conventional sub, Canada should join aukus
@@64SGH Agreed. But there is no spare build capacity down under either.