Is there a plan for this? Could they join the AUKUS program or would they be better off with smaller SSKs and if so, which?
Canadian Victoria Submarine Replacement
Is there a plan for this? Could they join the AUKUS program or would they be better off with smaller SSKs and if so, which?
wrong image
AUKUS is oversubscribed
In a word, no. They're going to run them until they become an actual hazard to use and then go with what appears to be the lowest bidder. Due to their countries fricked way it gets equipment, the replacement with be twice as much and 5-10 years outdated.
>go with what appears to be the lowest bidder
what would that most likely be? maybe French or Norwegian? the most recent news I could find about the topic doesn't look good
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/canadian-government-noncommittal-on-new-submarines-as-allies-push-forward-with-nuclear-fleet-plans
>muh AUKUS
frick off we're full
There is literally no reason for us to have submarines. The army literally doesn't even have air defence capability. Subs are a fricking moronic defence priority.
>muh air defense
>for an expeditionary force that only operates under US aircover
at least there's a reason for canada to have a navy
Like what? What the frick do we possibly contribute to American naval power?
manners
your boats take some of the burden off and let them focus assets elsewhere, with multiple allies contributing this adds up quickly and makes a significant difference
This argument is equally applicable to any military capability. If there was anything we could do on our own, it would free up US assets, including anti air
Given Canada's small population and defence budget, SSKs may be more reasonable.
Added firepower and coastal defence
Like in WW2, the RCN and RCAF is arguably most notable for contributing Atlantic escort groups, and pilots to the Commonwealth forces beginning at the Battle of Britain through the African campaign (where the Commonwealth air superiority over Rommel is critically overlooked).
The modern Canadian Armed Forces can assist the US in guarding its northern flank and coast while the USN projects power. This also ties in with a more defensive policy for the Canadian Govt.
This is also the role of NATO Europe (principally, the RN and MN with 3 carriers between them, but not forgetting Italy's Cavour and Trieste) on that side of the Atlantic.
Literally anything you mongoloid
The UK contribution to Iraq was absolutely and utterly minor relative to the USA, but they were still a pivotal asset to have that was easily integrated into any operation (both being Anglo NATO members with large quantities of shared assets helps)
And everyone elses contribution was more minor than the bongs, but even their lesser assets all have uses that ease the strain on the US
All Anglo nations (besides the US really, but including is my pipe dream) should seriously assess and figure out how to unify their military assets, and stop electing 5th columnist lobbyist c**ts
>easily integrated
Because it is standing British policy to bring an independent, self-sustaining capability to the party whenever possible
This is to avoid what coalition planners have described as people showing up with various bits of capability here and there but needing to be filled out to be useful, e.g. combat engineers without infantry, transport companies without workshop support, etc. And no it's a headache having to marry up different groups together in useful task forces, because not all of them can interoperate to the same standard
Historically the canadians have been able to contribute to a joint commonwealth army, such as in Korea, and continue to be able to do so. Pooling naval resources is important as its so fricking expensive to design, produce and operate ships, and the amount of time neccessary to design and build them exceeds that of planes or tanks. Even the US, with its massive budget, has been overtaken by China in frigate and destroyer numbers and tonnage, aircraft carriers are something the asiatics havent really mastered yet but they have comparatively less need of them given their current territorial ambitions are relatively close to home, worst case scenario they have 10 by the end of the decade, but for now its just the one. Canadian frigates and submarines would help pad out a CANZUK fleet if China starts menacing Australia/NZ in the future. The US should be there too, but the US is inherently unreliable and has its own interests and head of state, its important that the commonwealth is able to act independently if it needs to, and even if it doesnt it would help give the US-Commonwealth alliance a numerical advantage over chinese ships.
>waaah pay for muh LGBT POZZED ARMY SO WE CAN AFFORD HEALTHCARE
Frick off mutt, YOU WILL provide my defence and be happy
I'm not a mutt tho, im talking about the need for a commonwealth fleet to be able to defend australia/nz, who are fellow commonwealth anglo countries with the same head of state, who may be threatened by the yellow menace in future.
>one
Anon, I...
oh shit they've got three now wtf
>muh unreliable America
dipshits say this but never say who is reliable if america isnt
The UK is pretty reliable, especially if any of the commonwealth realms are going to be threatened. The US isnt reliable because of its schitzophrenic foreign policy such as randomly fricking over its allies (Suez, supporting the IRA, sponsoring islamic terrorist groups, which pissed off the french who are still active in africa), not sticking to foreign policy agreements (NATO in the east), non stop CIA or Military interventionism (which, excepting the UN liberation of korea, has continuously had terrible consequences e.g. removing gadaffi and creating ISIS), and ultimately differing interests on account of it being a foreign country. From an anglo POV, for now, the US could be expected to help if under military threat from china, due to NATO and aligning interests in containing china, but really at any point in time, US policy could completely flip and leave CANZUK out to dry.
>The UK is pretty reliable
they havent been reliable since 1942
>such as randomly fricking over its allies (Suez, supporting the IRA, sponsoring islamic terrorist groups, which pissed off the french who are still active in africa
unironic dogshit examples.
>suez
when the US, USSR and UN are against you, youre in the wrong
>supporting the IRA,
the yuropoors do seethe at protectionism, while being part of the world largest protectionst bloc
>sponsoring islamic terrorist while france is in africa
the french can leave lmao
>non stop CIA or Military interventionism (which, excepting the UN liberation of korea, has continuously had terrible consequences e.g. removing gadaffi
Gadaffi and Libya are solely the fault of France, they fricked up so bad they had to beg america for more bombs kek
>When US and USSR against you, you're in the wrong
Frick off decolonisation loving, globalist shill, Zimbabwe is just swell ain't it?
>creating ISIS
hol up
I may agree with you on most other points but not this
ISIS wasn't "created", and it didn't replace or pop up in lieu of peace and harmony and kumbayah
that region has always been a hotbed of Islamic terrorism, ever since Islamic terrorism was invented
(by the way guess who was one of the early big cheeses in Islamic terrorism? Gaddafi, the Osama of the 80s)
regardless of what the US did, some form or other of muzzie terror network would have come up, and would have targeted the rest of us
it's a fricking fact of life
also, seeing as how ISIS's peculiar form of moronation caused them to attack their own muzzie bros for not being sufficiently extremist, they're not even the worst of their kind that has cropped up in living memory
ISIS wasnt created by the US but the situation which lead to ISIS not only existing but becoming a serious threat in the middle east and north africa, was a direct consequence of America deposing gadaffi and destabilising libya. Islamic fundamentalism is also originally US sponsored, and the US continues to sponsor """""moderates""""" rebel or terrorist groups in many states that the US has taken a disliking to, some of whom, funnily enough, were groups who went on to join or contribute to ISIS. Islamic terrorism is fundamentally a product of wahhabist fundamentalism and the muslim brotherhood, but the CIA sponsoring the mujahadeen and other groups in the 80s in an successful effort to piss off the USSR really did wonders for them in terms of funding, organisation and military knowledge. That funding of "moderate" rebel or insurgent groups has never stopped, its still ongoing today in Syria, among other nations.
For an idea of the kind of person in the insane US foreign policy blob, look at samantha power, one of the main advocates of bombing libya, who "washed her hands of it" when the consequences werent to her liking. Then there are other more notorious ones like John McCain who seemingly just want to see the world burn.
https://twitter.com/FistedFoucault/status/1631038297920225280
>the situation which lead to ISIS not only existing but becoming a serious threat in the middle east and north africa, was a direct consequence of America deposing gadaffi and destabilising libya
yeah no, balls, that's longstanding vatnik + pajeet + chinko disinfo
if you know anything about the Middle East you know they've been hardcore terrorist material since the OG israeli war
like I said, terrorism is nothing new and was around loooong before the US decided to put boots in Afghanistan
and you know who had been teaching them, funding them, supplying them with entire armies worth of weapons for decades? the USSR. what kind of weapons and what kind of doctrine do all those muzzies use? funny how nobody says "USSR created ISIS" though, even though factor or volume wise, it's way more true than the US doing it
>Islamic fundamentalism is also originally US sponsored
bullshit
fundies have always been fundies, and they've sucked up to anybody in order to get their way
you might as well say the British sponsored Islamic fundamentalism, or India sponsored Islamic fundamentalism, both would be true as well depending how you look at it
and you definitely DEFINITELY can say Russia sponsored Islamic fundamentalism and to far greater degree than the US
>the CIA sponsoring the mujahadeen and other groups in the 80s in an successful effort to piss off the USSR really did wonders for them in terms of funding, organisation and military knowledge
yeah, it's well known that Yom Kippur was when Egypt used CIA weapons and CIA doctrine to defeat the IDF amirite
Its amazing how you can type so much, and yet say so little.
America destabilising libya or syria isnt disinfo, its a matter of public record. The consequences of doing this were extreme, both creating the migrant crisis for europe, and causing an explosion of islamic terrorism in north africa and the levant, which also made its way to europe with around a dozen high profile terrorist attacks. Most modern Islamic terrorist groups exist because of the US destabilising secular regimes in the muslim world, such as Iraq, Libya and Syria. In all these regions strong central governments keep everything in place until the US decides to bomb them, then shit hits the fan. These regimes are secularist in terms of not wanting to establish a new muslim caliphate or have a religious basis for the law, and are more nationalist. They (and the shiite) are actually the primary enemy of islamic terrorist groups, destabilising them will always directly aid the cause of islamic terrorism, including al-quaeda. ISIS itself is a product of the US invasion of Iraq, originally being the notably disobedient and violent Iraqi branch of al-quaeda. Toppling Saddam caused an explosion in islamic terrorist groups and rejeuvenated the idea of jihad. With no strong central authority to keep them in check, and no personal relationship between central government leaders and enough of the different powerful tribal groups, as well as being tainted by association with America, al-quaeda and other groups only became more powerful. The situation in Syria and Libya, with the US bombing government forces, allowed a wide range of fundamentalist muslim terrorist groups to establish control over large swathes of land. ISIS or groups which joined it received funding, material and training from the CIA, almost all of the salafist "rebel" groups in syria are or were sponsored by the US. ISIS then used eastern syria as a base to invade Iraq.
>its a matter of public record
the claim that it
>was a direct consequence
isn't
>causing an explosion of islamic terrorism
heh
explosion
but no, bullshit
Islamic terrorism is LESS now than before
anyone remember Lockerbie? Munich Olympics?
>strong central governments keep everything in place until the US decides to bomb them
myth
Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran are safe havens for terrorist training camps
those regimes let them do whatever provided they're aimed at the Great Satan
>They (and the shiite) are actually the primary enemy of islamic terrorist groups
lol
lmao even
funfact: I bet you don't know Sunni and Shiite militias actually work together against the IDF in Palestine
>ISIS or groups which joined it received funding, material and training from the CIA
Yeah
So little funding and materiel they complained about only getting a crate or so of ammo
meanwhile, you're avoiding my points about Russian involvement in the region
gee I wonder why
>Whattabout
>Whattabout
Midwit fricking moron, accept that our c**t has a long history of being perfidious
it's not "whataboutism" you mong, I'm directly refuting this bullshit
>Canadian frigates and submarines would help pad out a CANZUK fleet if China starts menacing Australia/NZ
"CANZUK" doesn't exist. Defending Australia and NZ is not a Canadian military priority.
US policy could completely flip and leave CANZUK out to dry
My Black person, Canada shares a continent with the US. It's not getting abandoned by the American military
We share the Arctic Ocean with Russia. All we really should focus on is icebreakers, destroyers, and subs along with long range patrol aircraft and good numbers of a high quality multi role.
>CAUKUS
No, not allowed, based on name alone.
Canada really just needs to accept its place as an auxiliary of the American Empire. If not full military integration, we should just ask the US how we can best contribute to and support their capabilities and devote our resources to that.
Frick that, full annexation now. I'm tired of living right over the border from the 2A, but not having it myself. It's torture
Frick off until you’ve fixed the Chinese problem
You c**ts shouldn’t even have F-35s. You’re more compromised than the Hungarians
>c**ts
Salty upside-downgay detected
Yeah and which of us is in the big boy Anglo club and which of us is the major Anglo nation being left behind?
Don’t worry mate, sure the Chinese will let you have a new government soon kek
>big boy Anglo club
lmao
>Chinese
Kek, you guys are ones to talk. Post semi-automatic rifle, noguns
>big boy Anglo club
>muh chinese
>saying kek like a moron
pls go back to nz
we're just as infiltrated as they are moron, cringe posts
>Canadian navy getting anything
All RCN funding is contracted directly to the Irving family's personal bank account
If you unironically believe the Canadian navy is being funded go talk to anyone in it
No because Canucks and NZ are pushing their luck within the United Anglo mainframe