• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Replacing the Subs

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
76
Points
560
Hmmm, and perhaps a little marketting while he's at it:

Trudeau would not understand a "military or strategic threat" if it were heading towards him with full armour, gun and "tankety tankety" treads.

Mark
Ottawa
 

Happy Guy

Member
Reaction score
106
Points
580
Not sure if anyone has reported on this before but it was reported a couple of weeks ago that Macron wants a face-to-face meeting with PM Trudeau. Anybody want to bet that submarines doesn't enter the conversation?
This is pure speculation on my part but I'm guessing that President Macron wants to pressure Prime Minister Trudeau into a deal to buy French submarines. The French will probably use their influence leverage within the European Union, to imply that trade with them (EU) and Canada would be lessen. The President will be facing reelection in Apr 2022 and the lost of the Australian submarine contract meant a significant loss in French jobs. Note this is not the first time Canada faced and bent to European pressure due to a trade threat. In 1975, Canada bought Leopard 1 MBTs after Prime Minister Trudeau (father of the current PM) had a discussion with West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt. The suggestion was that if Canada wanted trade with Europe, it would have to help defend Europe. A new submarine deal would greatly help President Macron's chances for re-election.

I don't know much about the The Barracuda class (or Suffren class) except that the Australians were to buy a conventional power variant of this class and presumably this is what the French will offer.

I know that PM Trudeau and his advisors are not politically astute in comparison to PM Harper or Chretien, but I think that they can link loss of trade equals loss of revenue for Canada.
 

Czech_pivo

Sr. Member
Reaction score
201
Points
530
This is pure speculation on my part but I'm guessing that President Macron wants to pressure Prime Minister Trudeau into a deal to buy French submarines. The French will probably use their influence leverage within the European Union, to imply that trade with them (EU) and Canada would be lessen. The President will be facing reelection in Apr 2022 and the lost of the Australian submarine contract meant a significant loss in French jobs. Note this is not the first time Canada faced and bent to European pressure due to a trade threat. In 1975, Canada bought Leopard 1 MBTs after Prime Minister Trudeau (father of the current PM) had a discussion with West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt. The suggestion was that if Canada wanted trade with Europe, it would have to help defend Europe. A new submarine deal would greatly help President Macron's chances for re-election.

I don't know much about the The Barracuda class (or Suffren class) except that the Australians were to buy a conventional power variant of this class and presumably this is what the French will offer.

I know that PM Trudeau and his advisors are not politically astute in comparison to PM Harper or Chretien, but I think that they can link loss of trade equals loss of revenue for Canada.
PM Pretty Socks should ask Macron to throw in St Pierre et Miquelon as part of any deal in buying French subs. 😁
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
719
Points
940
PM Pretty Socks should ask Macron to throw in St Pierre et Miquelon as part of any deal in buying French subs. 😁
considering naval group builds just about the entire french fleet, if the french president is just trying to keep jobs, he may not be trying to keep them in just the submarine facilities in Cherbourg. Naval Group also makes the Mistral, Gowind class Corvette's and others. He could pitch any number of vessels to Canada, the Gowind 1000 for example could be offered to replace the Kingston's. Crazy thought but if it is about jobs, enough arm twisting and we may do it.
 

Czech_pivo

Sr. Member
Reaction score
201
Points
530
considering naval group builds just about the entire french fleet, if the french president is just trying to keep jobs, he may not be trying to keep them in just the submarine facilities in Cherbourg. Naval Group also makes the Mistral, Gowind class Corvette's and others. He could pitch any number of vessels to Canada, the Gowind 1000 for example could be offered to replace the Kingston's. Crazy thought but if it is about jobs, enough arm twisting and we may do it.
A few years ago I toured their first nuc sub in Cherbourg.
The timing of the announcement lends one to believe that the chat will be about subs.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
696
Points
990
This is pure speculation on my part but I'm guessing that President Macron wants to pressure Prime Minister Trudeau into a deal to buy French submarines. The French will probably use their influence leverage within the European Union, to imply that trade with them (EU) and Canada would be lessen. The President will be facing reelection in Apr 2022 and the lost of the Australian submarine contract meant a significant loss in French jobs. Note this is not the first time Canada faced and bent to European pressure due to a trade threat. In 1975, Canada bought Leopard 1 MBTs after Prime Minister Trudeau (father of the current PM) had a discussion with West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt. The suggestion was that if Canada wanted trade with Europe, it would have to help defend Europe. A new submarine deal would greatly help President Macron's chances for re-election.

I don't know much about the The Barracuda class (or Suffren class) except that the Australians were to buy a conventional power variant of this class and presumably this is what the French will offer.

I know that PM Trudeau and his advisors are not politically astute in comparison to PM Harper or Chretien, but I think that they can link loss of trade equals loss of revenue for Canada.
As long as we learn from the lessons generated by the Australian situation, re buying a nuclear submarine redesigned to be conventionally powered.

Submarines are some of the most complicated ships built on this planet, and almost everything about them is classified to one extent or another.

We can’t just say ‘Plug in a conventional propulsion system and power system please.” The Australians learned that the hard way. (Need to make room for fuel storage, fuel cells, different engines, etc.)

Whatever we buy will need to be built with US combat systems in mind, same with the Aussies. US combat management systems, US weapons. (Our recent buy of advanced mk48 torpedoes is a good indicator that we are sticking with it, which is a good thing.)

The French make good kit, and good ships.

I’m not opposed to the idea up front, as long as we don’t experience the same issues the Australians did. France needs to solicit a bid that is designed with conventional power from the start, not a complete redesign.


As for trade being used as an influencer, let’s chat with both the Americans and the French.

Who do we do more trade with? The US. Who do we live right beside? The US. Who can make our lives more challenging if we tick them off? The US.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,869
Points
910
As long as we learn from the lessons generated by the Australian situation, re buying a nuclear submarine redesigned to be conventionally powered.

Submarines are some of the most complicated ships built on this planet, and almost everything about them is classified to one extent or another.

We can’t just say ‘Plug in a conventional propulsion system and power system please.” The Australians learned that the hard way. (Need to make room for fuel storage, fuel cells, different engines, etc.)

Whatever we buy will need to be built with US combat systems in mind, same with the Aussies. US combat management systems, US weapons. (Our recent buy of advanced mk48 torpedoes is a good indicator that we are sticking with it, which is a good thing.)

The French make good kit, and good ships.

I’m not opposed to the idea up front, as long as we don’t experience the same issues the Australians did. France needs to solicit a bid that is designed with conventional power from the start, not a complete redesign.


As for trade being used as an influencer, let’s chat with both the Americans and the French.

Who do we do more trade with? The US. Who do we live right beside? The US. Who can make our lives more challenging if we tick them off? The US.
I would not put it past some folks in Ottawa to fall for a “Euro-centric ego stroking” that puts us on the wrong side of our own Geo-political/Economic interests…
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
335
Points
1,010
As long as we learn from the lessons generated by the Australian situation, re buying a nuclear submarine redesigned to be conventionally powered.

Submarines are some of the most complicated ships built on this planet, and almost everything about them is classified to one extent or another.

We can’t just say ‘Plug in a conventional propulsion system and power system please.” The Australians learned that the hard way. (Need to make room for fuel storage, fuel cells, different engines, etc.)

Whatever we buy will need to be built with US combat systems in mind, same with the Aussies. US combat management systems, US weapons. (Our recent buy of advanced mk48 torpedoes is a good indicator that we are sticking with it, which is a good thing.)

The French make good kit, and good ships.

I’m not opposed to the idea up front, as long as we don’t experience the same issues the Australians did. France needs to solicit a bid that is designed with conventional power from the start, not a complete redesign.


As for trade being used as an influencer, let’s chat with both the Americans and the French.

Who do we do more trade with? The US. Who do we live right beside? The US. Who can make our lives more challenging if we tick them off? The US.
It wouldn't shock me if the French were to offer us the opportunity to take over the Australian Shortfin Barracuda program. On paper the sub is a fairly good fit for us (US combat systems, etc.) and they could offer it at a reduced rate due to the amount of pre-work already done by the Aussies (which wouldn't have to be duplicated unlike any other Canadianized conversion of other existing designs) and an additional reduction on the price to have them built in France (keeping French shipyards working) since our yards are already at capacity with the current shipbuilding program.
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
91
Points
380
On paper the sub is a fairly good fit for us (US combat systems, etc.) and they could offer it at a reduced rate due to the amount of pre-work already done by the Aussies (which wouldn't have to be duplicated unlike any other Canadianized conversion of other existing designs) and an additional reduction on the price to have them built in France (keeping French shipyards working) since our yards are already at capacity with the current shipbuilding program.
No Canadian yards are able to build submarines.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,798
Points
940
As long as we learn from the lessons generated by the Australian situation, re buying a nuclear submarine redesigned to be conventionally powered.

Submarines are some of the most complicated ships built on this planet, and almost everything about them is classified to one extent or another.

We can’t just say ‘Plug in a conventional propulsion system and power system please.” The Australians learned that the hard way. (Need to make room for fuel storage, fuel cells, different engines, etc.)

Whatever we buy will need to be built with US combat systems in mind, same with the Aussies. US combat management systems, US weapons. (Our recent buy of advanced mk48 torpedoes is a good indicator that we are sticking with it, which is a good thing.)

The French make good kit, and good ships.

I’m not opposed to the idea up front, as long as we don’t experience the same issues the Australians did. France needs to solicit a bid that is designed with conventional power from the start, not a complete redesign.


As for trade being used as an influencer, let’s chat with both the Americans and the French.

Who do we do more trade with? The US. Who do we live right beside? The US. Who can make our lives more challenging if we tick them off? The US.
The US does not build non nuclear subs and unlikely we will buy US nuclear attack subs, even if they were willing to build them for us. So our options are German, Japanese or south Korean for large subs. Most of the subs on the market are to small for our stated needs.
 

Maxman1

Member
Reaction score
108
Points
580
So our options are German, Japanese or south Korean for large subs.

tenor.gif
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
335
Points
1,010
No Canadian yards are able to build submarines.
Our compliant Canadian yards were unable to build the ships they are currently building prior to the investments provided by the shipbuilding strategy. With enough money poured into the hole we could create the capability to build submarines under license in Canada. Never underestimate the Government's ability to make stupid decisions in order to get the political benefit of creating high paying jobs in their ridings.

That being said, I of course think it would be absolutely insane for us to try and build submarines domestically and I think the idea would be dismissed once anybody with half a brain looked at the cost to create that capability.
 

Czech_pivo

Sr. Member
Reaction score
201
Points
530
The US does not build non nuclear subs and unlikely we will buy US nuclear attack subs, even if they were willing to build them for us. So our options are German, Japanese or south Korean for large subs. Most of the subs on the market are to small for our stated needs.
I seem to remember reading something previous in the Australian lead ups to selecting a replacement for the Collins class that Japan would be a difficult choice since they haven't really been in the export market for military equipment in recent memory and that would prove challenging.
 

Czech_pivo

Sr. Member
Reaction score
201
Points
530
Our compliant Canadian yards were unable to build the ships they are currently building prior to the investments provided by the shipbuilding strategy. With enough money poured into the hole we could create the capability to build submarines under license in Canada. Never underestimate the Government's ability to make stupid decisions in order to get the political benefit of creating high paying jobs in their ridings.

That being said, I of course think it would be absolutely insane for us to try and build submarines domestically and I think the idea would be dismissed once anybody with half a brain looked at the cost to create that capability.
Maybe they can build them in Windsor.
I hear that Chrysler's old Plant 3 (mini-van/Pacifica manufacturing site) is down to one shift. We can re-train those autoworkers to build submarines, good Union jobs! Windsor does now have the highest unemployment rate in Canada and floating those finished subs down the Detroit River on its way to the Welland Canal and out the St. Lawrence would show the American public that we're serious about our defence!
 

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,455
Points
940
Maybe they can build them in Windsor.
I hear that Chrysler's old Plant 3 (mini-van/Pacifica manufacturing site) is down to one shift. We can re-train those autoworkers to build submarines, good Union jobs! Windsor does now have the highest unemployment rate in Canada and floating those finished subs down the Detroit River on its way to the Welland Canal and out the St. Lawrence would show the American public that we're serious about our defence!
It's not WWII anymore, where car companies re-tooled to build airplanes. Systems now are much more sophisticated and submarines would be at the top end of that complexity.

How long would we need to re-train them, for potentially just one block of subs? Also, that is an entirely different industry, with a completely different set of infrastructure. The costs (and time) associated would be prohibitive.
 

lenaitch

Sr. Member
Reaction score
425
Points
810
It wouldn't shock me if the French were to offer us the opportunity to take over the Australian Shortfin Barracuda program. On paper the sub is a fairly good fit for us (US combat systems, etc.) and they could offer it at a reduced rate due to the amount of pre-work already done by the Aussies (which wouldn't have to be duplicated unlike any other Canadianized conversion of other existing designs) and an additional reduction on the price to have them built in France (keeping French shipyards working) since our yards are already at capacity with the current shipbuilding program.

But wouldn't all the instruments and controls in the Aussie design be upside down for us? 😁
 

Czech_pivo

Sr. Member
Reaction score
201
Points
530
It's not WWII anymore, where car companies re-tooled to build airplanes. Systems now are much more sophisticated and submarines would be at the top end of that complexity.

How long would we need to re-train them, for potentially just one block of subs? Also, that is an entirely different industry, with a completely different set of infrastructure. The costs (and time) associated would be prohibitive.
I was trying to be humorous!
Playing on the craziness of the political games that are played out all to often in this industry!
Windsor and Essex County used to be absolute Liberal strongholds (think Herb Gray, Eugene Whelan), they are not anymore. Something as big as this, as stupid as this, would lock up those Federal ridings for decades and decades.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
696
Points
990
It's not WWII anymore, where car companies re-tooled to build airplanes. Systems now are much more sophisticated and submarines would be at the top end of that complexity.

How long would we need to re-train them, for potentially just one block of subs? Also, that is an entirely different industry, with a completely different set of infrastructure. The costs (and time) associated would be prohibitive.
Pretty sure he was being sarcastic there Dimsum 😉

Maybe they can build them in Windsor.
I hear that Chrysler's old Plant 3 (mini-van/Pacifica manufacturing site) is down to one shift. We can re-train those autoworkers to build submarines, good Union jobs! Windsor does now have the highest unemployment rate in Canada and floating those finished subs down the Detroit River on its way to the Welland Canal and out the St. Lawrence would show the American public that we're serious about our defence!
Why does Windsor have such a high unemployment rate?

Must be cursed ground or something, Detroit hasn’t been doing all too well either for a while…giving police officers a house as a hiring incentive
 
Top