by Mike Benedict » Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:17 pm
pgollin wrote:.
The UK was trying to sell the Canadians some upgraded Trafalgars, but the USA interfered claiming they had a veto on the use of submarine PWR reactors. This pi**ed off Rolls Royce and Associates (and the RN) who felt that the latest RN reactors owed little to the original info transfer.
One thing that got the Canadians riled up about a decade ago was some posturing by the USA when they tried to claim that once there was a proper "North West Passage" (despite the US saying Global Warming doesn't exist) that they would claim that the new route would be "International Waters" ! THEN, the Canadians were really worked up, I haven't heard anything about it for ages, but the US trying to renew its ice-capable ships MIGHT be a sign of their renewed interest.
.
The position of the US government had to do with treaties with both France and the UK which included no transfer of nuclear technology to "a third country." I think it was a matter of policy rather than intentionally pissing anyone off. In any event, the ongoing support of nuclear vessels is hugely expensive, and AFAIK there is little capacity for heavy maintenance on nuclear warships among Canadian shipyards/dockyards.
The Northwest Passage issue is a diplomatic one, and that is how it must be addressed. Whatever the result of diplomacy in that regard, Canada is still the primary defense of the Canadian Arctic. Successive governments have started and then stopped, and started again, and then pushed off necessary investment in naval assets and facilities usually claiming the costs cannot be justified. There is still - as there is in Western Europe - a sugar high from the collapse of the USSR. Canadians and European NATO members still think there is a peace dividend to spend elsewhere. Military establishments have been affected either by repositioning because of costs (the US army has a much smaller footprint in central Europe), substantially downsized as with the Royal Navy, or in the case of Canada allowed its navy to become a fleet of 20-30 year old ships.
Canada's National Shipbuilding Strategy at this time remains a wish list on paper. With climate changes in the Arctic, and with aggressive foreign state actors becoming involved there, 6 or 8 Arctic patrol vessels are a poor statement of national sovereignty and defense capability.
Russia is not likely to be shy about claims on Arctic resources wherever they may be found. The Chinese are messing around spending money in autonomous Greenland, and it is not because they like cold weather. Against such a background, Canada has over 200,000 miles of coastline for which it is responsible - very much of it in the Arctic Archipelago. A credible navy is of great importance to Canada and her interests. Politicians being mostly concerned about spending government money to bribe voters so they can retain their positions of influence, defense has been an afterthought for decades.
The four overage, mechanically unreliable and numerically inadequate submarines are one of the results. If Canada feels eight Arctic patrol vessels are needed, Canada also could probably use at the very least six or eight diesel-electric submarines with adequate range and endurance to further patrol her EEZ, continental shelf, and to gather intelligence both for her own defense needs, and also for NATO. Submarines are not even (AFAIK) part of that shipbuilding strategy, so acquiring them from France or Germany is likely the necessary approach.
The United States navy can't do as much in the Arctic as it should. The fleet is stretched globally, and the Pentagon has wasted many billions of dollars on white elephants like USS
Zumwalts and those puny Littoral "Combat" Ships, and not replaced the frigates that it needs for all the tasks ships such as those must do. All you can do is shake your head.
With Canada's National Shipbuilding Strategy, the political powers talk a good game, but it would not be a surprise to see the numbers reduced, and reduced once again, and capabilities degraded due to cost. Canada is a huge, wealthy country with a mature and sophisticated shipbuilding industry. The population is well educated and the country is technologically advanced. I am hardly a supporter of the current US administration, but the US position is correct that NATO members must increase defense spending and realize that there are renewed security threats and geo-political concerns. The "peace dividend" has been spent. That was three decades ago.
[quote="pgollin"].
The UK was trying to sell the Canadians some upgraded Trafalgars, but the USA interfered claiming they had a veto on the use of submarine PWR reactors. This pi**ed off Rolls Royce and Associates (and the RN) who felt that the latest RN reactors owed little to the original info transfer.
One thing that got the Canadians riled up about a decade ago was some posturing by the USA when they tried to claim that once there was a proper "North West Passage" (despite the US saying Global Warming doesn't exist) that they would claim that the new route would be "International Waters" ! THEN, the Canadians were really worked up, I haven't heard anything about it for ages, but the US trying to renew its ice-capable ships MIGHT be a sign of their renewed interest.
.[/quote]
The position of the US government had to do with treaties with both France and the UK which included no transfer of nuclear technology to "a third country." I think it was a matter of policy rather than intentionally pissing anyone off. In any event, the ongoing support of nuclear vessels is hugely expensive, and AFAIK there is little capacity for heavy maintenance on nuclear warships among Canadian shipyards/dockyards.
The Northwest Passage issue is a diplomatic one, and that is how it must be addressed. Whatever the result of diplomacy in that regard, Canada is still the primary defense of the Canadian Arctic. Successive governments have started and then stopped, and started again, and then pushed off necessary investment in naval assets and facilities usually claiming the costs cannot be justified. There is still - as there is in Western Europe - a sugar high from the collapse of the USSR. Canadians and European NATO members still think there is a peace dividend to spend elsewhere. Military establishments have been affected either by repositioning because of costs (the US army has a much smaller footprint in central Europe), substantially downsized as with the Royal Navy, or in the case of Canada allowed its navy to become a fleet of 20-30 year old ships.
Canada's National Shipbuilding Strategy at this time remains a wish list on paper. With climate changes in the Arctic, and with aggressive foreign state actors becoming involved there, 6 or 8 Arctic patrol vessels are a poor statement of national sovereignty and defense capability.
Russia is not likely to be shy about claims on Arctic resources wherever they may be found. The Chinese are messing around spending money in autonomous Greenland, and it is not because they like cold weather. Against such a background, Canada has over 200,000 miles of coastline for which it is responsible - very much of it in the Arctic Archipelago. A credible navy is of great importance to Canada and her interests. Politicians being mostly concerned about spending government money to bribe voters so they can retain their positions of influence, defense has been an afterthought for decades.
The four overage, mechanically unreliable and numerically inadequate submarines are one of the results. If Canada feels eight Arctic patrol vessels are needed, Canada also could probably use at the very least six or eight diesel-electric submarines with adequate range and endurance to further patrol her EEZ, continental shelf, and to gather intelligence both for her own defense needs, and also for NATO. Submarines are not even (AFAIK) part of that shipbuilding strategy, so acquiring them from France or Germany is likely the necessary approach.
The United States navy can't do as much in the Arctic as it should. The fleet is stretched globally, and the Pentagon has wasted many billions of dollars on white elephants like USS [i]Zumwalt[/i]s and those puny Littoral "Combat" Ships, and not replaced the frigates that it needs for all the tasks ships such as those must do. All you can do is shake your head.
With Canada's National Shipbuilding Strategy, the political powers talk a good game, but it would not be a surprise to see the numbers reduced, and reduced once again, and capabilities degraded due to cost. Canada is a huge, wealthy country with a mature and sophisticated shipbuilding industry. The population is well educated and the country is technologically advanced. I am hardly a supporter of the current US administration, but the US position is correct that NATO members must increase defense spending and realize that there are renewed security threats and geo-political concerns. The "peace dividend" has been spent. That was three decades ago.