Canadian Foreign Policy & Affairs II

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

It's always hard to predict the future but there is an argument that the Artic which requires nuclear isn't the biggest use case right now. New Diesal submarines could be very useful in a Taiwan confrontation.

There definitely is an argument for nuclear sub, for Canada as a large Arctic maritime nation. But, nobody is going to share that tech with us, unless they are certain we are absolutely serious about defence. Nuclear submarine tech is one of the crown jewels of military tech. Sharing it signifies deep and abiding commitments to decades of cooperation at the highest levels. And they have to be certain these attitudes endure regardless of change in government. For all the criticism against the Liberals, the Conservatives weren't actually very generous on defence spending. They didn't have any plan or intention to hit 2% either. And aren't even talking about it now. And we're talking about purchase and operations costs of $300-500B over 40-60 years. So this is a commitment of basically ~0.2-0.5% of GDP for several decades.

Next, the choice is between AUKUS and France for that kind of relationship. Which of those two do you think would offer us that kind of a partnership? Nobody in AUKUS really seems interested to have Canada in the club without a sea change in attitude. And I can't even imagine what the French would ask for in return. Or if the rest of Five Eyes would even allow a purchase like that from the French.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There definitely is an argument for nuclear sub, for Canada as a large Arctic maritime nation. But, nobody is going to share that tech with us, unless they are certain we are absolutely serious about defence. Nuclear submarine tech is one of the crown jewels of military tech. Sharing it signifies deep and abiding commitments to decades of cooperation at the highest levels. The choice is between AUKUS and France for that kind of relationship. Which of those two do you think would offer us that kind of a partnership? And we're talking about purchase and operations costs of $300-500B over 40-60 years.

We were close to doing this with France in years past. That deal even had a number of the subs being built in Canada.

I would be a very strange state to be in where Canada would become more tightly aligned with the French on military technology that the US/UK but stranger things have happened.

While I think we should be going down this route, the people in Ottawa who sign the cheques do not.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by casper

We were close to doing this with France in years past. That deal even had a number of the subs being built in Canada.

I would be a very strange state to be in where Canada would become more tightly aligned with the French on military technology that the US/UK but stranger things have happened.

While I think we should be going down this route, the people in Ottawa who sign the cheques do not.

Those "years past" were a long time ago. I'm not sure the US wouldn't punish us for a deal like this today. But also, if we can afford to buy French subs, then we can afford to join AUKUS and benefit from commonality with the UK and Australia, a major advantage for ops in the Arctic and Pacific respectively. So why bother with the French?

As for the people signing the cheques, they don't have a choice. Nuclear subs are not just military hardware. You need to arrange your nuclear sector to support that fleet. There's a symbiotic relationship between a country's nuclear navy and their nuclear power sector. That kind of complexity is reserved for countries that can actual do complex things and build big things. This is clearly not Canada anymore. Neither is Australia. But a massive motivation behind their nuclear submarine purchase was to actual develop a nuclear power sector. Nobody in Canada thinks like this anymore. Not even most of the folks on this forum.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Canada is the only G7 country without High Speed Rail and one of two G7 countries without a flat top for its navy. Those may not seem related. But they both require a willingness to dedicate talent and resources to a national effort to build things that may not have immediate pay off. The Canada of the 20th century was probably that kind of country. The Canada of the 21st century can't see beyond the sales figures of investment condos.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There definitely is an argument for nuclear sub, for Canada as a large Arctic maritime nation. But, nobody is going to share that tech with us, unless they are certain we are absolutely serious about defence. Nuclear submarine tech is one of the crown jewels of military tech. Sharing it signifies deep and abiding commitments to decades of cooperation at the highest levels. And they have to be certain these attitudes endure regardless of change in government. For all the criticism against the Liberals, the Conservatives weren't actually very generous on defence spending. They didn't have any plan or intention to hit 2% either. And aren't even talking about it now. And we're talking about purchase and operations costs of $300-500B over 40-60 years. So this is a commitment of basically ~0.2-0.5% of GDP for several decades.

Next, the choice is between AUKUS and France for that kind of relationship. Which of those two do you think would offer us that kind of a partnership? Nobody in AUKUS really seems interested to have Canada in the club without a sea change in attitude. And I can't even imagine what the French would ask for in return. Or if the rest of Five Eyes would even allow a purchase like that from the French.

DND insiders always have a weird idea about what five eyes "wil allow". These are political decisions at the end of the day. We can certainly buy nuclear subs from any NATO country. The idea they wouldn't sell them to us is laughable. Now the industrial benefits and tech transfer is a different issue but we would be a member of AUKUS if we were ready to buy N. Subs. Under this government we clearly aren't or that would have been the chance to get the best bang for the buck.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

DND insiders always have a weird idea about what five eyes "wil allow".

And rightly so. There is no arrangement elsewhere that could replace what we get from that community. And like I posted before, that relationship goes well beyond sharing intelligence. When we say "Five Eyes" colloquially, it's short hand for a whole bunch of relationships in that group.

ABCANZ Armies (formally, the American, British, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand Armies' Program) is a program aimed at optimizing interoperability and standardization of training and equipment between the armies of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, plus the United States Marine Corps and the Royal Marines. Established in 1947 as a means to capitalize on close cooperation between the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada during World War II, the program grew to include Australia (in 1963) and New Zealand (as an observer from 1965, with full membership in 2006, although the organization's short title remained "ABCA Armies' Program"[1]).
...
Equivalent organizations for the nations' navies (AUSCANNZUKUS - Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom and United States naval C4 organization),[3] air forces (ASIC - Air and Space Interoperability Council),[4] the military scientific communities (TTCP - The Technical Cooperation Program), and the Intelligence communities (UKUSA and Five Eyes) also exist.

Links for those other organizations here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABCANZ_Armies

So it's not a small matter for us to simply ignore the concerns of our Five Eyes partners, especially if it gets to the point that we risk getting booted from those forums. Average civvy may not think these relationships are a big deal. But our national security framework are based on and centered on them. There isn't a government who will ever pick France over Five Eyes knowing this.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Those "years past" were a long time ago. I'm not sure the US wouldn't punish us for a deal like this today. But also, if we can afford to buy French subs, then we can afford to join AUKUS and benefit from commonality with the UK and Australia, a major advantage for ops in the Arctic and Pacific respectively. So why bother with the French?

As for the people signing the cheques, they don't have a choice. Nuclear subs are not just military hardware. You need to arrange your nuclear sector to support that fleet. There's a symbiotic relationship between a country's nuclear navy and their nuclear power sector. That kind of complexity is reserved for countries that can actual do complex things and build big things. This is clearly not Canada anymore. Neither is Australia. But a massive motivation behind their nuclear submarine purchase was to actual develop a nuclear power sector. Nobody in Canada thinks like this anymore. Not even most of the folks on this forum.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Canada is the only G7 country without High Speed Rail and one of two G7 countries without a flat top for its navy. Those may not seem related. But they both require a willingness to dedicate talent and resources to a national effort to build things that may not have immediate pay off. The Canada of the 20th century was probably that kind of country. The Canada of the 21st century can't see beyond the sales figures of investment condos.

Those years past were a time when Canada wanted nuclear subs, was ready to partner with the UK and that deal was blocked by the US.

The nuclear industry in Canada is far more advanced than the Australia. The Australians made a deliberate decision many years ago not to be active in that space. AECL use to be a federal crown corporation that built and exported civilian nuclear technology. They basically had products. It's commercial arm was sold off to SNC Lavalin. SNC is not a product company, it is a professional services company. With that we significantly shifted away from the level of leadership we use to have.

While I think SNC is a major success story for Canada, it is not an OEM. We need OEMs (in multiple industries) that are based out of Canada to be successful. We are slowly losing them.

Until 2020 I would have said, the civilian and military nuclear propulsion industry were very different beasts that had limited overlap. That has changed the SMR reactors that Ontario is partnering with GE-Hitachi to built in Canada and Chalk River look much closer to the kind of reactor you would find in a sub than anything Canada was ever involved in before.

The CANDU reactors that have been the hallmark of the Canadian nuclear industry were driven by using natural uranium without enrichment. They are bulky and not overly interesting in a military application. The US was always focused on much more compact designs.

Getting back to the Australians, I get the impression from media reports they are not intended in getting into nuclear in any significant way. The nuclear plant would be manufactured and supplied as a sealed module. A black box they are not allowed to open. The Australians have chosen to focus in other aspects of the deal, such as hypersonic, AI, etc. Fair enough.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

DND insiders always have a weird idea about what five eyes "wil allow". These are political decisions at the end of the day. We can certainly buy nuclear subs from any NATO country. The idea they wouldn't sell them to us is laughable. Now the industrial benefits and tech transfer is a different issue but we would be a member of AUKUS if we were ready to buy N. Subs. Under this government we clearly aren't or that would have been the chance to get the best bang for the buck.

Just to give some idea of how closely held information about nuclear submarines is. Read about the British-French nuclear submarine collision in 2009. Indeed, a major motivation for Canada to have any submarines at all, is because it forces our allies to tell us when their submarines are in Canadian waters, to avoid these kinds of incidents.

So no the French won't just sell us nuclear submarines like a regular commercial transaction. They'll probably want some kind of cooperation guarantees that could potentially jeopardize our relationship with the US.

But again if we can afford to buy from the French then we might as well get onboard with AUKUS and get the subs and industrial cooperation (the French are famous in Europe for lack of industrial cooperation). We'll get a newer design, commonality with partners and more industrial benefits.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

But again if we can afford to buy from the French then we might as well get onboard with AUKUS and get the subs and industrial cooperation (the French are famous in Europe for lack of industrial cooperation). We'll get a newer design, commonality with partners and more industrial benefits.

I may sound like a heretic but if Canada decided to get into the nuclear submarine game, I would have us base our future submarines at Kitsap Washington and New London Connecticut to take advantage of the support facilities of the USN. That would save us a boatload (pun intended) of money, and allow Canada to gain experience in operating nuclear submarines.
Yes there would be no massive infrastructure projects (not immediately) for the politicians to ribbon cut, but we`d get a capability on the cheap (so to speak).

[Hybrid247]

Even if Canada somehow managed to join pillar 1 of AUKUS, chances are we wouldn't receive our first SSN until the late 2040s or even the 2050s anyways. That timeline doesn't match up well with the retirement of the Victoria class subs which will likely occur in the early 2030s. We would go at least a decade, if not 2, without subs.

At this point, it seems to me the best case scenario would be to go for one of the leading lithium-ion AIP designs to serve until ~2060 and aim to join AUKUS for a new SSN that would come into service around that time. That would give us more time to build up our already-respectable nuclear industry (as outlined by Casper) and the domestic support facilities that would be needed for the new SSNs in the future.

In the above scenario, I could see us working closely with the US/UK to deploy our new SSKs to the GIUK gap and east Asia region, which would in turn free up their SSNs to deploy in the high north where they can be our eyes under the thick arctic ice. Could be a mutually-beneficial agreement.

As for new lithium-ion subs, I'm betting we end up with the Korean KSS-III. They seem to offer some of the best performance metrics for range, endurance and lethality, and would likely be relatively affordable compared to competing sub designs from France, Germany and Japan. I think that's why the current maintainer of our subs, Babcock International, recently partnered with Hanwha Ocean in anticipation of this.

[MonctonRad]

An excellent post. Your timelines seem sound. I like the idea of getting a fleet of diesel-electrics to bridge the gap, perhaps looking at nuclear subs down the road.

Diesel-electrics are cheaper anyway. This might give the navy some latitude to consider 2-3 amphibious assault ships/helicopter carriers by the 2030s as well.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Even if Canada somehow managed to join pillar 1 of AUKUS, chances are we wouldn't receive our first SSN until the late 2040s or even the 2050s anyways. That timeline doesn't match up well with the retirement of the Victoria class subs which will likely occur in the early 2030s. We would go at least a decade, if not 2, without subs.

At this point, it seems to me the best case scenario would be to go for one of the leading lithium-ion AIP designs to serve until ~2060 and aim to join AUKUS for a new SSN that would come into service around that time. That would give us more time to build up our already-respectable nuclear industry (as outlined by Casper) and the domestic support facilities that would be needed for the new SSNs in the future.

In the above scenario, I could see us working closely with the US/UK to deploy our new SSKs to the GIUK gap and east Asia region, which would in turn free up their SSNs to deploy in the high north where they can be our eyes under the thick arctic ice. Could be a mutually-beneficial agreement.

As for new lithium-ion subs, I'm betting we end up with the Korean KSS-III. They seem to offer some of the best performance metrics for range, endurance and lethality, and would likely be relatively affordable compared to competing sub designs from France, Germany and Japan. I think that's why the current maintainer of our subs, Babcock International, recently partnered with Hanwha Ocean in anticipation of this.

Interesting if that's the timeline why we didn't just join and pretend we are going to buy them. That seems to be the main procurment strategy of this government.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Interesting if that's the timeline why we didn't just join and pretend we are going to buy them. That seems to be the main procurment strategy of this government.

JT - the "let's pretend" PM...........







All the navy has to do is tell JT that we are going to "pretend" to buy nuclear subs, and he would be all in.........

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

I may sound like a heretic but if Canada decided to get into the nuclear submarine game, I would have us base our future submarines at Kitsap Washington and New London Connecticut to take advantage of the support facilities of the USN. That would save us a boatload (pun intended) of money, and allow Canada to gain experience in operating nuclear submarines.
Yes there would be no massive infrastructure projects (not immediately) for the politicians to ribbon cut, but we`d get a capability on the cheap (so to speak).

The actual AUKUS sub is not American. It's a joint UK-AUS design with a Virginia Payload Module. The USN actually would not be able to help that much. And at the end of the day, from a national perspective, the infrastructure is almost more important than the product. Our shipbuilding program is an excuse to make sure we retain a shipbuilding industry that is capable of producing large complex vessels. A nuclear sub program would have similar goals with the added goal of boosting the domestic nuclear power sector.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Even if Canada somehow managed to join pillar 1 of AUKUS, chances are we wouldn't receive our first SSN until the late 2040s or even the 2050s anyways. That timeline doesn't match up well with the retirement of the Victoria class subs which will likely occur in the early 2030s. We would go at least a decade, if not 2, without subs.

At this point, it seems to me the best case scenario would be to go for one of the leading lithium-ion AIP designs to serve until ~2060 and aim to join AUKUS for a new SSN that would come into service around that time. That would give us more time to build up our already-respectable nuclear industry (as outlined by Casper) and the domestic support facilities that would be needed for the new SSNs in the future.

In the above scenario, I could see us working closely with the US/UK to deploy our new SSKs to the GIUK gap and east Asia region, which would in turn free up their SSNs to deploy in the high north where they can be our eyes under the thick arctic ice. Could be a mutually-beneficial agreement.

As for new lithium-ion subs, I'm betting we end up with the Korean KSS-III. They seem to offer some of the best performance metrics for range, endurance and lethality, and would likely be relatively affordable compared to competing sub designs from France, Germany and Japan. I think that's why the current maintainer of our subs, Babcock International, recently partnered with Hanwha Ocean in anticipation of this.

Good analysis. And you're right that any decision to get nuclear subs is basically a decision for the 2040s. That said, right now, I am not sure that any diesel subs we get would arrive before the 2040s either. Especially if we demand they be substantially built in Canada. Very likely we end up with a 5-10 years with no subs and a huge number of navy personnel posted overseas on exchange to ensure we retain basic submarine operations competency.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Interesting if that's the timeline why we didn't just join and pretend we are going to buy them. That seems to be the main procurment strategy of this government.

That strategy only works on Canadians. Others see through that bullshit.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

That strategy only works on Canadians. Others see through that bullshit.

Not really. Especially if we are claiming Trump is the biggest impetus. We could switch the RCMP to Defence spending or OAS for all veterans which is basically what makes Greek defence spending so high and all he cares about is 2%.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The actual AUKUS sub is not American. It's a joint UK-AUS design with a Virginia Payload Module. The USN actually would not be able to help that much.

Using the USN infrastructure would be a cost saving until we had our own infrastructure in place.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And at the end of the day, from a national perspective, the infrastructure is almost more important than the product. Our shipbuilding program is an excuse to make sure we retain a shipbuilding industry that is capable of producing large complex vessels.

That is why I said I was a heretic by even suggesting that COA.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Not really. Especially if we are claiming Trump is the biggest impetus. We could switch the RCMP to Defence spending or OAS for all veterans which is basically what makes Greek defence spending so high and all he cares about is 2%.

Police can only count as part of defence spending if they are “ trained in military tactics, are equipped as a military force, can operate under direct military authority in deployed operations, and can, realistically, be deployed outside national territory in support of a military force”

Very little of the RCMP would meet these criteria.

OAS for veterans is a rounding error that wouldn’t budge the number at all.

Greece spends 3.5% of GDP.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Not really. Especially if we are claiming Trump is the biggest impetus. We could switch the RCMP to Defence spending or OAS for all veterans which is basically what makes Greek defence spending so high and all he cares about is 2%.

He cares about what his staff are telling him. And since 2016, his movement is actually starting to build a foreign policy framework. And if you look at some of their work, they are quite critical of the 2% target for exactly the kind of shenanigans you suggest. I would be careful to mistake Trump's public persona for what he is getting told or believes. And we should be particularly worried about the foreign policy hawks he'll be bringing with him to office. Personally, don't think whatever we hit matters with Trump. He'll move the goalpost anyway. What matters is what the majority of US Congress thinks of us. That's the body that signs trade treaties and allows exemptions (like on Buy America). If we lose them, we will be in trouble.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Police can only count as part of defence spending if they are “ trained in military tactics, are equipped as a military force, can operate under direct military authority in deployed operations, and can, realistically, be deployed outside national territory in support of a military force”

Very little of the RCMP would meet these criteria.

OAS for veterans is a rounding error that wouldn’t budge the number at all.

Greece spends 3.5% of GDP.

I believe a big chunk of that is pensions from their mandatory service. In Canada about only about 6% of seniors are veterans. Still with OAS estimated to be $100 Billion by 2028 that would still be a substantial increase.

You can easily count all of the RCMP in most of that. They are a para-miltary organziation. Their is no auditor general telling you the numbers are fudged.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

He cares about what his staff are telling him. And since 2016, his movement is actually starting to build a foreign policy framework. And if you look at some of their work, they are quite critical of the 2% target for exactly the kind of shenanigans you suggest. I would be careful to mistake Trump's public persona for what he is getting told or believes. And we should be particularly worried about the foreign policy hawks he'll be bringing with him to office. Personally, don't think whatever we hit matters with Trump. He'll move the goalpost anyway. What matters is what the majority of US Congress thinks of us. That's the body that signs trade treaties and allows exemptions (like on Buy America). If we lose them, we will be in trouble.

And to add to this: much of the "Trumpist" foreign policy has actually continued under Biden. (With much more coherence, obviously).