Canada to get up to 12 submarines.....

[Kapitan]

Rockstar: We also see the recruitment and retention problem in the US Navy & Australian Navy but the Aussies are looking at going big in the coming years with SSNs joining the fleet, the USN is getting better but they have large warships that are people hungry.

My chief concern isn't actually the USN but the MSC a lot of the ships are antique, and what is more they have issues in sea time and recruiting for the merchant marine.

The RFA of the UK their crews have just gone on strike which isn't good putting our already limited fleet at risk we also have gaping holes in capabilities right now too.

Canada is getting 2 new replenishment ships which are currently years behind schedule and way over budget and on top of this they are in a very expensive lease for MV Astrix which can only do half the functions of a dedicated auxiliary

Skybird: If they get 4 boats that's not enough as we already see currently, the problem with Canada is they have 3 coast lines and 2 fleets, the have 3 boats on the Pacific and only 1 on the Atlantic.

To be effective we need 6 boats minimum with a 3 and 3 split allowing at least 1 boat on station on each coast all the time using the 1-3 rotation rule.

Time will tell it wasn't all that long ago when they thought about disbanding submarines then the Victoria's came up cheap and it wouldn't be the first time Canada has disbanded submarines either.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

Skybird: If they get 4 boats that's not enough as we already see currently, the problem with Canada is they have 3 coast lines and 2 fleets,

Oh I am absolutely aware of that. And in a reasonable and ideal world you would get those 12 boats. But the budget is the budget, and it even cracks down on quantum physics and freezes them if the budget is running too short.

[mapuc]

Well the title says "up to 12 submarines" Which must mean that they will end up with 2-12 submarines in the end.

Markus

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

My chief concern isn't actually the USN but the MSC a lot of the ships are antique, and what is more they have issues in sea time and recruiting for the merchant marine.

I’ve heard that about the ship’s in MSC. We sort of shoot ourselves in the foot because of Jones Act and our dwindling ship building capability

I also wonder if our MSC is given low priority because of changes in war fighting doctrine which seems geared towards smaller conflicts. Also, not much of a need to rebuild the Atlantic convoys of old when the U.S. military stationed around the world are supported by a host country’s goods and services.

[Kapitan]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

I’ve heard that about the ship’s in MSC. We sort of shoot ourselves in the foot because of Jones Act and our dwindling ship building capability

I also wonder if our MSC is given low priority because of changes in war fighting doctrine which seems geared towards smaller conflicts. Also, not much of a need to rebuild the Atlantic convoys of old when the U.S. military stationed around the world are supported by a host country’s goods and services.

To be honest the Jones act doesn't give you much of an issue with regards to the MSC and here is why:

There are quite a few ships in the MSC that were built overseas (including ex soviet built ships) that ply the oceans doing all kinds of operations, most of the stuff moved to Europe for Ukraine for example was done by a PCTC bought or leased from a commercial company and built in Korea / Japan and other places.

The Jones act runs very deep and I know there is a lot of debate on both sides for and against, however I will just say this.
If you think the USA has not many yards now in which to build ships once you lift that jones act then that number will decrease even further and here is why and an example.

No US shipyard can compete with China Korea or Japan period even if it was to stand alone, the labour costs alone blow costs for lines out of the water, now couple that with the fact that China has 46% of the commercial market and heavily subsidizes its shipbuilding industry (as does Korea and Japan) your entire industry collapses over night.

Where is the proof that this will happen? Look no further than Europe, the UK used to be the hub of ship building globally we had a quasi jones act in place, we lifted it after WWII the result was in under 30 years our capability was utterly gutted and decimated.
The last major ship build program was the point class in the 2000s before that it was the Tanker Esso Hibernia in 1974 and before that QE2 1969.
The Clyde area used to have dozens of ship yards with the biggest being John Browns all but one are now gone.
Others have suffered too Belfast, Newcastle, Tyneside, Rosyth, Falmouth Bristol, Avonmouth the lot gone.
Its that bad that of the yards left about 4 of them in all not one bid for the Tide class contract which went to south korea.

You also have a strategic reason for retaining shipbuilding and also trade, the reason the British Empire even existed was because the ship carrying goods from one colony to another had to be UK flagged (sound familiar?).
If you look at countries in the 20th century that relied on international flagged ships for trade like Germany you can see why they collapsed when at war, the British ships used to intercept the international flagged ships escort them to a British port and buy their cargo, the neutrals were happy they got more than what Germany paid and shorter voyage and very likely return cargo.
How does that affect you today? well Hawaii s a mini version of this and Matson is the only line that does direct mainland USA to island service, if you open that route to international trade you end up with the islands potentially in a position with a lack of supplies.

The strategic reason for ship building is obvious you can replace losses in war without the yards and expertise you end up like the UK is today having a few monopoly yards being drip fed gov contracts, thankfully there is still some commercial building going on in US yards.

With regards to the change in war, the need for logistics is now ever greater lets be blunt even in modern wars like the Falklands and Gulf War I neither could have been fought without the aid of the RFA / MSC and the merchant Navy / Marine.

In the Falklands we used 42 ships taken from trade (Merchant Navy) and 22 RFA ships to support a fighting fleet of just 63 warships.
Fast Forward to 1991 and you have desert storm during that campaign 80+% of the equipment was moved by sea you couldn't airlift that much equipment (still cant).
We saw the same scenario played out in 2003 as well btw, the only difference with the way logistics was done was 2001 Afghanistan campaign where we sent a lot of equipment over land up until 2014 and the rest by air.

So really war hasn't changed all that much in terms of logistics.

I think our political masters have lost sight of what it is the MSC / RFA actually do as a whole, yes they are not glamours ships they don't get the glory but without then you don't have an operation.

Its an area that is easy to cut back on and neglect because the public don't notice or understand the ramifications of doing so then when in a war it becomes all too clear.