Canada’s Next Submarine Fleet (Part 3): Procurement, AUKUS, UUVs, & Nuclear vs. Conventional

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ธ.ค. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 47

  • @garret1930
    @garret1930 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    38:30 you can still install kinetic effectors to a UUV if it's part of a larger swarm system, where the swarm is in communication with an opperator but that individual vehicle may only be in communication with another drone that's acting as a messenger, or if you use it in a similar capacity to a loiter munition.

  • @bobm203
    @bobm203 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Thank you Gentlemen for the ongoing insight to these issues. Some awful interesting things both said & hinted at when you listen closely. Very much appreciated.

  • @dragon26ist
    @dragon26ist 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    I will believe it when I see them build the first one..

  • @woodpecker6452
    @woodpecker6452 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    The government will never expedite this , they will find excuses and add requirements to kick the can down the road

  • @alberta6368
    @alberta6368 23 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

    Canadian procurement needs improvement. All the shipyards are maxed out. We need more of everything now which is sad. The national ship building program is great. Unfortunately 1 of those yards, Seapan doesn’t have the room to expand its production. I would insist on the government to build another production centre. FYI, the Korean’s have a shipyard that is over 6 km in landmass. We need to build more more more shipyards. The National Ship Building Program does not accommodate industrial capacity. Canada puts out fires. It does not manage long term strategy.

  • @allannantes8583
    @allannantes8583 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

    I agree with the comments at the end whereby we may have accelerate the purchase of these subs because of the urgency of the situation. A case in point when we lost an oiler in route to Pearl Harbour do to an engine failure.The Harper government leased a second hand oiler replenishment ship from Spain until we could find a more permanent solution (that being the purchase of a fine next to brand new cargo ship that could be converted into a replenishment oiler ship MV Asterix). This of course filled the gap for at least one coast until we could start the process of building two new replenishment ships that are capable of being in a combat zone. Of course the Trudeau government had to try and make a political issue out of all of this because normal procurement processes (that take a decade to come to fruition) were not followed. Of course the Trudeau government’s attempt to make a mountain out of a mole hill did not amount to a row of beans except to allow themselves to have a whole lot of egg on their own face. Another example was Harper bought Leppard 2 tanks with air conditioning for the Army to use in Afghanistan when the Leppard 1 had inside temperatures of +60 degrees Celsius. Sometimes a man has to do what a man has to do when the situation demands immediate action. This current situation I believe at least needs expedited procedures to be implemented. By that I mean we should be able to place our purchase order for these submarines by the middle of 2025. The MV Asterix turned out to be on time and on budget and the Navy has expressed that it is very pleased with its performance. She will never have the HMCS designation as she does not have a double hull and radar and is not rated to be in a combat zone. I heard the RCN likes her so much they want to keep her after the two bad boys show up.

  • @allannantes8583
    @allannantes8583 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +12

    It has already been seven years since the RCN put in a request to replace the Victoria class submarine. Let’s review what has happened to date, the “ Canadian Submarine Replacement Project” gets set up in 2021. Putin invades Ukraine in 2022 and NATO evaluates all member states status of readiness or lack there of. Fast forward to 2024 and Canada starts the passive process of implementing the procurement process in the hopes of being able to place an order by 2028. If it was going any slower it would be going backwards. We are now seven years in and we have just issued a “Request for Information”. From what I have read Canada has talked to the six countries who could provide our new submarine. Does that not suggest that we have all the information that we need? I do hope that the twelve people on this project known how to find the overdrive gear on the stick shift. The ship yards which are our options are getting orders placed as we speak. We are going to end up at the back of the line if we are not careful, but what do I know as I am only an armchair critic the same as Ret’d Admirals😂.

    • @woodpecker6452
      @woodpecker6452 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      That’s the whole idea delay delay delay then criticize the next government for spending money on submarines not welfare projects

    • @jeffhedrich3551
      @jeffhedrich3551 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      Current estimate is that replacement subs would start to arrive in 2037. By then underwater drones will be the dominant platform.

  • @billygibson2613
    @billygibson2613 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Yes Canada should have protection sub's and aukus protecting all people in Canada very strong defence against terrisom 😊😊😊😊😊😊😊

  • @woodpecker6452
    @woodpecker6452 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    This is going to go the same way as the helicopter acquisition Canada may get one in 20 years by which time it will be redundant

  • @allannantes8583
    @allannantes8583 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    What do you mean when you say 4 eyes, who is the missing partner? It was originally 5 eyes.

  • @jazzmandan7056
    @jazzmandan7056 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    Irrespective of whatever the political stripe of the day is, what’s important is this country’s defence. Not what’s important for any political party. The decision has to be enshrined in order to keep it moving forward. Look at the sea king replacement dumpster fire 🇨🇦 Bypass procurement like the C17s and get it done. Mid 2030’s is wayyyyy too far off..(shit or get off the pot..) otherwise we’ll miss our construction slots and then have to pay more on everything. Competition should only take place when capability is not at risk nor threatens the country’s overall security. The C17’s were needed, they got them. The Poseidon was the best available choice, they got them. This is the approach that’s needed now. We are not going to have the luxury of dickering around when and if we get dragged into something in the future.

  • @alberta6368
    @alberta6368 23 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

    We need a combined fleet. 3 Arctic SSN’s, 12 Atlantic/Pacific SSK’s. Canada needs to start pulling its weight. Canada don’t rely on the US!

  • @russellblake9850
    @russellblake9850 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    UUVs ... you mean Duncan Sandys had it wrong ?

  • @russellblake9850
    @russellblake9850 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    could we have an "AUKUSC" agreement ? ... oh ! never mind !

    • @KellyBrownlee
      @KellyBrownlee 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Probley not, Canada is not a reliable security country, The US and Britian will never sell us nuclear subs, but maybe the French would sell us their new Suffern nuclear subs, MAYBE?

    • @allannantes8583
      @allannantes8583 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      I would call it CAUKUS.

  • @jamesmorgan4596
    @jamesmorgan4596 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    It's sad to hear how beaten down our own upper leadership feels about nuclear submarines. The obvious choice for our future and it's not even a consideration because of inept polices and a "good enough" mentality. These guys deserve better IMO. Canada is not as ambitious as we once were and it's sad.
    Not much to look forward to. Not even in 60 years.
    We've been left behind. No wonder nobody wants to join.

    • @ronclark9724
      @ronclark9724 25 วันที่ผ่านมา

      If Canada chose nuclear submarines the government may buy six, not twelve, if not four... If Canada desires to have twelve diesel subs, four for the Pacific, four for the Atlantic, and four for the Arctic archipelago, conventional diesel electric submarines provides the numbers to maintain a presence in each. Four nuclear submarines will only provide a presence in one ocean, choose either the Atlantic, Pacific, or Arctic... Canada is a large nation geographically with three oceans, not one...

  • @allannantes8583
    @allannantes8583 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    There was not nearly enough discussion on AUKUS. Also not nearly enough discussion on why we are not going with nuclear powered subs. We could start with why the decision was to cancel nuclear subs in 1988?

    • @KellyBrownlee
      @KellyBrownlee 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      The Americans and British will not sell Canada nuclear subs because we do not take are security seriously, and were freeloaders.

    • @glennewdick
      @glennewdick 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      We cannot afford nuclear, cannot maintain them properly, and the time line for training a nuclear submarine crew is prohibitively long.

    • @allannantes8583
      @allannantes8583 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      @@glennewdickI disagree, the new submarine under AUKUS will be delivered in the 2040s and right now it is being called the AUKUS class sub that will be developed in the UK. We are not talking here about the “Virginia” class or the “Astute” class. That is the one I am talking about. We have been looking after our own nuclear industry for 77 years. This pod cast mentioned us getting in on nuclear subs in 20 years time. Well BINGO there you go, AUKUS class subs. There will be lots of ice to contend with in the Arctic for many decades to come. We will need to join CAUKUS today.

    • @allannantes8583
      @allannantes8583 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@glennewdickin the interim period we have to run with this conventional project.

    • @glennewdick
      @glennewdick 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@allannantes8583 well i am a retired submariner Technician 22 years Navy, now I'm working in Submarine repair quality assurance/Subsafe for the fleet maintenance facility 4.5 years. i stand by my comment. we will never be able to maintain nuclear powered sub's in Canada. Even the UAS has made comments that they would not sell us Nuclear subs unless they maintained them. they do not trust us with the maintenance of nuclear powered submarines. And we all know Canada wont buy anything they cannot make jobs in Canada on, one of the reasons we are in this mess IMO. Hell we can barely maintain our conventional subs. when we take 10 years to do a refit there is a problem with our program and 10-20 years will not fix that.
      second issue is crewing we will not get to the level of crewing to meat 8 new conventional subs in 10-20 years let along nuclear. right now we have 1.5 crews (qualitied and fit) for 4 subs think about that for a second.... it takes years to train a single crew member for conventional subs, crews need to go to sea to train, we can not get more then one sub at sea at a time right now with only 10 spots on board for trainees we have a long way to go to meet these pipe dreams.

  • @russellblake9850
    @russellblake9850 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

    how much will it cost to have a robust industry able to support the military ? Ans ... a lot.
    what are we doing without this robust industry support ? Ans ... pi$$ing away our money.
    what are we to do ? either ...
    1) be prepared to spend a lot over many different flavours of government to support this goal of the Navy, or
    2) if you can't win, can't break even, leave the game while you still have your cloths.
    Given the competing draws on our military budget (the Air Force wants more F35s, and the Army is like "what about us boyo"), given the competing draws on our government budget, what is the likely expenditure on this project ? Ans ... not nearly enough, another half-hearted attempt to do as much as we can with the funds provided.

    • @allannantes8583
      @allannantes8583 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      The stakes in the Arctic are very high, China declared themselves as a near Arctic nation. Really. They have accelerated their production of ice breakers and do not recognize our right to our EEC in the Arctic so they want to make it a free for all for the resources it contains. They have also stated that the north west passage is going to be part of their new “Silk Road” strategy.

  • @chm985
    @chm985 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    There is going to be an armchair engineer in these comments pretty upset because they disagree with basically everything the armchair preaches in all these comment sections.

  • @allannantes8583
    @allannantes8583 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I would like to know if the owner of this channel would like to participate in the discussion in the comments section?

  • @stingingmetal9648
    @stingingmetal9648 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    This is actually pathetic. You people have no clue what the priorities should be. A bunch of "experts" going off the old template. Wasting time, energy and money. Trying to keep up like some little twerp thats trying to be part of the group. You people should NOT be taken seriously.

    • @alpearson9158
      @alpearson9158 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      certainly your not

    • @stingingmetal9648
      @stingingmetal9648 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@alpearson9158 you're*

    • @chm985
      @chm985 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      So what do you have to say where they are wrong?