THOMSON: Trudeau's submarine promise highly unlikely to be kept

News that Canada’s new submarine fleet will be operational in 2037 should be met with a great deal of scepticism and concern by Canadians. We have a shameful history of making big defence promises then failing to keep them. Over time, that has undermined our sovereignty.To put this latest operational forecast into perspective, Canada initially announced its intent to purchase the F-35 for the Royal Canadian Air Forces (RCAF) back in 2010. Glossing over all bungling which both the Liberals and Conservatives share, we are still approximately 2 years away from taking possession of the first F-35 airframe. That means that 16 years will have elapsed from the time they were initially announced, to first delivery and they still won’t be considered operationally effective.But while 16 years may seem staggering, it pales in comparison to the most mind-boggling example of our procurement ineptitude — Canada’s infamous CH-124 Sea King replacement project. That debacle dates back to 1983 when Canada began to look for a replacement for its aging Sea King fleet. All told, it took an embarrassing 33 years for the first replacements to be delivered to the RCAF. (In 2016 the air force took possession of six Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclones.)All of that to say it makes the government’s estimate of a mere 13 years to find, acquire, build, take possession, crew and put to sea a fleet of 12 new conventional powered submarines pretty fantastical. It would be wonderful if I was wrong, but history has shown that is rarely the case for defence procurement.The issue we face with our pitiable procurement is that the world is considerably more volatile than it was in the past two or three decades. The threats posed by Russian and Chinese expansionism can no longer be ignored. That means strategic defence platforms like fighter jets and submarines can no longer take a decade to acquire and put into operation.Whether we want to admit it or not, the reality is that war is more likely than not in our future and Canada through its respective alliances will undoubtedly be dragged into it. Then what? Are we, or our allies, going to shrug and say that it’s acceptable to wait 10 years to get submarines or jets online? No, of course not because in war combatants lose equipment and personnel. Take a short-lived conflict, such as the 1982 Falklands War. Fought between Great Britain and Argentina, it lasted little more than 2 months, but nevertheless saw major equipment and personnel losses on both sides. Argentina in particular lost 100 aircraft, which if put against the RCAF’s current inventory would account for almost one third of the RCAF’s total capability destroyed. How would we manage such losses?Looking at a more contemporary example, according to story by Newsweek published on 22 Sept, Russia lost 22 tanks, 52 armoured personnel vehicles (APV’s) and 1,500 troops in 24 hours of combat. It’s a staggering figure.That’s roughly the same number of personnel Canada has deployed to Latvia (1600) under Operation Reassurance, and it’s significantly more tanks and APV’s than they have too. Now imagine they’re all dead, wounded, or captured.How do we replace a battle group worth of people, their equipment, and 1/3 of our aircraft with our current recruiting and procurement? The short and brutal answer is we couldn’t. It would be a devastating blow; we couldn't recover.This is why need a significant shift in the mindset of Ottawa and in the broader consciousness of our country with regards to procurement and the Canadian Armed Forces in general. The option is do it now, which may not be pleasant, or have it forced on us by war which will cost us more dearly than we can fathom.I’d prefer if it were the former.

THOMSON: Trudeau's submarine promise highly unlikely to be kept

Related Stories