Nobody asked me, but …My Dear Canada:

This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected.  Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies.  Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue.  The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.

Ship and Aircraft Photographs

Over 35,000 available for pur­chase! Dating back to 1883. Send for FREE BROCHURE • Photo Service • U.S. Naval Institute • Annapolis, MD 21402

their defense at sea.

And cheap. Price it out, Canada.

My Dear Canada:

All right, Canada, we need to have a talk. About your navy. Your navy’s a mess, and it’s headed the wrong way.

You depend on us in defense mat­ters, both in our benign intent, which permits us to share the world’s longest unguarded border, and in our firm commitment (through NATO and through stead­fast U. S. policy) to defend Canada against any aggression. You share our deterrent shield. The defense of North America is a cooperative un­dertaking of our two nations.

The burden is shared unequally. You know the details, Canada. You spend only 2% of your gross na­tional product on defense; the United States spends 5.6%. And you rank ahead of only Iceland and Lux­emburg in NATO contribution.

These facts make it clear that you understand your dependency on the United States for your national de­fense and that you are not uncom­fortable with the situation.

Now, let’s look at your navy. Twenty destroyer types, three diesel submarines, three replenishment ships, and a collection of miscella­neous cats-and-dogs. The technology is old and so are the ships. And they’re not in very good shape. The destroyers have an engineering his­tory so sad as to bring tears to your eyes. The submarines, as a senior Canadian officer told me, are “that damned British design—you have to take them completely apart to fix anything.” The whole lot is moving toward block obsolescence and the need to buy a new navy.

You plan on buying six new frig­ates. Cancel the plan. Buy subma­rines. You plan on a navy composed largely of destroyer types. Cancel that navy. Build a navy comprised of diesel submarines in significant numbers.

Weigh these two options, Canada. Your destroyer navy is short both on defense and offense. Without carrier air and direct-support subma­rines, it cannot conduct offensive antisubmarine warfare with any credibility. Beyond the range of pro­tective land-based aircraft, your de­stroyer navy is barely capable of protecting itself. And that’s consid­ering your navy as an entity. Now split it between the Atlantic and Pa­cific, put a few ships down for re­pair, and you end up with a collec­tion of ships whose only hope of survival is in finding a U. S. task force to join. That’s not much of a national naval policy, Canada.

The proposed Canadian submarine navy is one. Submarines need not be aggregated with other ship types for effectiveness. Each submarine you put to sea would be an independent force possessing both offensive strength and a full self-defense capa­bility. A collection of Canadian sub­marines operating in the waters off your coasts would seriously threaten any enemy force entering the region, far more so than your destroyer navy. The submarines won’t need replenishment ships. You can de­commission these beasts and cease devoting a big share of your navy to

Decide what level of offensive nava force you want and see what that would cost with a submarine navy- Compare this with the predicted procurement costs for new ships an the known sustaining costs of the conventional destroyer navy you now contemplate. You’ll get more bang for the buck with subs.

We have two reasons for hoping that you will move from a surface ship navy to one rich in submarines' Canada. For one, a Canadian sub navy would offer a strong contribu tion to North American defense.

The second reason is that we nee those submarines to work with. >

U. S. Navy is about to get out of the diesel submarine business, anU we could sure use some Canadian boats to serve as enemy surrogates in training and evaluation against diesel submarine threat. The rela­tionship would be symbiotic, our navy staying sharp against diesel submarines and yours honing its skills against the world’s best nu­clear boats. There’s a synergism there—something totally absent Wi your destroyer plans.                       .

The United States is in a position^ to give you real help, Canada, if Y° choose the submarine option. O^ur submarine training capacity will ac commodate you. Our technology ^|S transferable. In our retiring diesel fleet, we have a quick source of cheap hulls in good condition, not be your entire submarine fleet, bu to at least give you a start and the time to gear up and build your oW ■ In the end, Canada, you have the opportunity to build the best and most modern diesel submarine nay in the world. It is a needed area ° specialization and a proper venue for the outstanding professionalism of your naval officers. Build a sub marine navy, Canada.