Related time notes
- Bruships 255: Modern Navy & Naval History Questions Answered Live...49:18Swapping later ships into an earlier namesake classQ&A
- Bruships 251: Alternate History & Naval History Questions Answered Live...10:09Canada's submarine choice and confidence in the Type 212Q&A
- Bruships 232: Naval History Questions Answered Live...1:49:51Canada's submarine choice is driven by oceanic and under-ice rangeQ&A
- Bruships 197: Naval History Questions Answered Live...3:36:03Why a Commonwealth SSK would need exceptional rangeNotable Point
- Bruships 174: Ten Days to Christmas... have I got the lights up yet?3:09:30Why Arctic anti-submarine surveillance still depends on submarinesQ&A
- Bruships 131: Battleships...1:20:03Why Upholder exports were mostly implausibleQ&A
- Patreon 53: Comparison of Future Warships for the RN/RAN/RCN/RNZN2:41:21Why large AIP submarines do not solve the range problemQ&A
- Bruships 67: Cruising on through with Questions & Bru55:36How Britain might base 22 SSNs and 40 conventional submarinesQ&A
- Patreon 33: Amphibious ship development from 1980's to modern day.3:10:30More Upholders could lead to a Commonwealth SSKQ&A
- Britain of the 1980s: Long Patrol P5 the Royal Navy of the 1980s19:09SSK cuts, force substitution, and uncrewed submarinesNotable Point
- Bru Ships Episode 4: Naval Aviation Themed Books to Review & a general Q/A3:03:42Canada needs ocean-going submarines, not small coastal boatsQ&A