Kindly double check ones facts before stating them. One might find that their 'facts' are wrong. In the case of the RAN, there are currently a little over 14,000 regulars while the RCN has about 8,500 regular personnel. In other words, the regular establishment personnel strength of the RAN is ~67% greater than that of the RCN. Not exactly what I would call close in size.
The Australian Navy performs the roles of both the Canadian Coast Guard and the Canadian Navy. The Australian Coast Guard is an all volunteer service that is mostly good will and a little search and rescue. So with that in mind, look at the numbers again my friend. When you add the 4500+ Canadian Coast Guard to the 8500 Canadian Navy you get over 13,000 naval personnel to Australia's Navy of 14,200+. Now if you want to add in the reserves in Canada who almost exclusively staff the Kingston class ships you have another 5000+ to Australia's 2150. Looking more comparable now for you?
It doesn't matter anyway. Look up parkinson's law to learn more about the problems of comparing two bureaucratic institutions based on the number of people in the organization as a direct comparison of their performance. If you want more accuracy, it becomes important to look at the number and type of vessel each operates.
Both navies have 12 frigates. Canada has 12 patrol boats to Australia's 14 plus another 6 mine hunters converted into patrol boats but remember, their coast guard has no law enforcement ability. Keeping in mind that the Canadian Coast Guard has about 11 vessels dedicated to mid and offshore patrol we have a relative comparison of 23 Canadian patrol boats to Australia's 20. Canada has 6 Hydrographic survey ships, and Australia has 6 too. Australia has 6 subs to our 4 but they recognize the usefulness of subs to defend their island against an enemy so in their wisdom they are looking at 6 more.
Remember the Canada First Defence Plan? The one that tries to make it clear that defending the Nation and the continent from attack is the primary focus of the Canadian navy. Submarines are excellent defensive weapons. Layered defence my friend, look it up. Subs and properly armed coastal defence ships are the key for defending Canada. Large surface vessels may look nice on a poster and make some navy brass feel good when they walk on the bridge, but mostly our frigates were built for anti-submarine warfare remember? Guess someone thought subs were a big enough threat that all of Canada's large surface warships (our frigates and destroyers) were designed for anti-submarine warfare.
Now that defence of Canada is secondary to impressing allies and running off around the world, our frigates are pushed into roles that they weren't meant for. Our destroyers too have been refitted to attempt to protect our frigates in their new roles since they can't adequately protect themselves. Our coastal patrol vessels, the Kingston class ships, are so inappropriate for their roles that a mid-life upgrade was cancelled. The subs we bought are for war games with the US, not defending the Arctic waters.
Also, the suggestion still manages to ignore the strengths and limitations of submarines and surface warships. Canada will still need to be able protect surface shipping, whether they are Canadian-flagged merchant vessels operating abroad, merchant vessels moving rawmats and/or goods to/from Canada, or sealift ships moving, people, supplies and equipment to or from Canada. Subs are not the sort of naval asset which can on their own, escort a surface vessel of convoy. There is the rather small matter of the convoy needing to make a slow transit so the sub can keep up... Also, a sub can effectively combat a detected surface or subsurface threat, but can do SFA about inbound air threats, be they from MPA, maritime strike aircraft, or AShM launched from hostile subs, surface vessels, land bases or aircraft.
Canada's naval doctrine is about defending Canada and taking part in some foreign aide and adventures from time to time. It is not, and could not be about defending every ship flying a Canadian flag. You'd need a lot more than 15 SCSCP ships called for my the navy for that.
Military sealifts would be protected under my plan, just as they would under the current plan. The difference is under my plan, our 'adventuring surface fleet' is smaller while the home defence force grows. Layered, silent, effective.
To respond to your statement about subs being defenceless, do you understand the x+1 logic? Surface ships may be able to defend against a limited attack under ideal circumstances but keep in mind they are a lot easier to find and a capable enemy can easily overwhelm their defences. A submarine is much harder to spot and the Germans have anti-aircraft missiles for submarines to both protect themselves and attack with. Even a 30mm cannon is being designed that fires under water.
It depends on just how the plan gets implimented. If the idea is that 12 'Son of Collins' subs are built and all in RAN service at the same time... Then yes, I think that a bit unrealistic unless a major war has broken out. OTOH if as t68 suggested, that a dozen are built over a thirty year span, and that they are built in lots of 4 and that at any given point in time there are perhaps 6 - 8 subs in RAN service... That I think is workable.
Obviously if Canada / Australia / Germany were building the new subs, they are going to be delivered over the span of years in my scenario as well. Just to address one point above, it takes years to develop and build a submarine and put it in service with a competent crew. When a major war breaks out, it's too late to build more subs. Like Donald Rumsfeld said "you go to war with the army (or in this case navy) you have, not the army you might want, or wished to have at a later time.
Having 15 subs active isn't necessary at any one time in the present climate, but the ability to put 15 to sea would be a significant deterrence to any potential rival.
I hope you agree now that the two navies are indeed similar when looked at in a truly comparative way and that modern AIP submarines are a big part of the best defence for Canada.
