-
Canada wants to build a larger submarine fleet than the UK.
-
But buying 12 new boats may be a stretch at a time when it’s having trouble operating four.
-
Canada has the world’s largest coastline, and subs could be crucial to defending it.
If Canada has difficulty operating four submarines, how easy will it be to operate 12 more?
That’s one of the questions overhanging Canada’s ambitious new plan to build up to a dozen new subs that would boost the desperately understrength Royal Canadian Navy, and give Canada a larger sub fleet than Britain, Germany and most other NATO nations.
The plan also faces numerous obstacles that could render it a pipe dream. At the least, it would require revitalizing Canada’s neglected submarine force, which consists of just four aging and troubled Victoria-class diesel-electric attack subs, only one of which is fully operational at any moment.
“Everything is done on a shoestring, the results of which are evident,” Paul Mitchell, a professor of defense studies at Canadian Forces College, told Business Insider.
For now, details of the submarine acquisition are sparse. The boats will be “conventionally-powered, under-ice capable,” with a Request for Information to potential bidders being published this fall, according to the Canadian government. When asked by Canadian media, a government official “could not confirm how much the plan will cost, how many boats will be purchased or when they will arrive.”
But the ability of these subs to operate under ice underscores the impetus for the program: safeguarding Canadian interests in the Arctic, where melting ice has created a race among nations — including the US, Russia and China — to secure new shipping routes and mineral resources. “Competitors are seeking access, transportation routes, natural resources, critical minerals, and energy sources through more frequent and regular presence and activity,” warned Canada’s Department of National Defense. “They are exploring Arctic waters and the sea floor, probing our infrastructure and collecting intelligence.”
Canada has the world’s largest coastline, spanning 150,000 miles on three oceans — the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic. With so much territory to protect — plus commitments to NATO, the Royal Canadian Navy is already overstretched. Canada had the world’s third-largest navy just after World War II: today its battle fleet includes just 12 frigates and four subs, plus various small patrol craft.
Submarines could be very useful for defense of Canadian territory, or asserting a presence in contested Arctic waters. “SSKs [diesel-electric attack submarines] would be excellent in patrolling the areas in which vessels might approach the entry points to the Canadian Arctic: the Davis Strait in the east, and the Beaufort Sea in the west,” Mitchell said. Unlike nuclear-powered submarines, diesel-electric boats must surface to recharge their batteries but air-independent propulsion technology allows them to stay submerged for much longer periods.
Equipping new submarines with cruise missiles would also give Canada a potent land-attack capability. The Canadian frigates already have Harpoon anti-ship missiles, but the subs could also be armed with Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles, like the ones American subs carry. Harpoon and Tomahawk would be “the only strategic attack capability that the Canadian armed forces have now or in the future,” said Mitchell.
Submarines would also enable Canada to support NATO and even Pacific operations, such as contributing warships to any US-led coalition to defend Taiwan from Chinese invasion. The Victoria-class boats have deployed as far as Japan and Korea, the Barents Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean.
But tripling Canada’s submarine fleet will require more than buying new boats. For example, shore-based infrastructure such as maintenance and training facilities are lacking, and are split between the East and West coasts. To sustain submarine operations in the Arctic would require a new base in the region, said Mitchell, who noted that the distance between Canada’s Pacific naval base in British Columbia and the western entrance to the North West Passage is almost 4,000 miles.
As in the US and other militaries, the Canadian armed forces are suffering a recruitment crisis. And even if enough enlisted personnel were available to man 12 submarines, there would be a lack of experienced officers. “Presently, there are only five qualified submarine captains in the RCN,” said Mitchell. “One is a rear admiral and two are at the captain rank. Subs are generally commanded by lieutenant commanders, which are two ranks below captain.”
Though Canada acquired its first submarine in 1914, its recent experience with undersea boats has not been a happy one. In 1998, the Royal Canadian Navy bought four used British Upholder-class diesel-electric subs that became surplus as Britain switched to an all-nuclear submarine fleet. Renamed the Victoria-class, the boats soon acquired a reputation for unreliability. “The Victoria class was underfunded in its history in terms of maintenance and sustainability,” Mitchell said. Refits were snarled by bureaucracy and tardy work by defense contractors. Shortages of spare parts were exacerbated by the need to maintain stockpiles 3,000 miles apart.
“This scarcity often meant something needed on the West Coast was only in the spares inventory on the East,” said Mitchell.
In addition, Canadian shipyards can’t build submarines. Several foreign shipbuilders have expressed interest in selling subs to Canada, including South Korea’s Hanwha Ocean and Sweden’s Saab.
But importing foreign-made subs rather than supporting local manufacturers raises another question: is the Canadian public willing to pay foreign companies the $500 million or more that conventional submarines cost? Canada spent just 1.38%of its GDP on defense in 2023, well below NATO’s goal of 2% for alliance members.
A massive submarine acquisition program would also face competing priorities. Canada’s National Shipbuilding Strategy will cost more than $100 billion, including 15 new destroyers to replace aging frigates by 2050, as well as Arctic patrol vessels and icebreakers. In addition, the Royal Canadian Air Force is buying 88 F-35 fighters that will cost nearly $75 billion in acquisition and sustainment by 2070.
National defense has rarely been a major issue in Canadian politics. “Our approach historically has been one of minimal effort,” Mitchell said.
“Should Canada continue its historic practice of underfunding defense, the proposed 12 boats may become the biggest white elephants in defense history.”
Michael Peck is a defense writer whose work has appeared in Forbes, Defense News, Foreign Policy magazine, and other publications. He holds an MA in political science from Rutgers Univ. Follow him on Twitter and LinkedIn.
Read the original article on Business Insider
