Derek 2.0

Exactly..........and a voice of reason from Shep:

Are you suggesting the reports self stated evaluation period is wrong? You've never asked......as stated, and included in the report, the AORs were intended leave the fleet in 2016 and the destroyers the following year. As historic, the destroyer HMCS Algonquin has been in reduced operating status since her accident last summer, the second destroyer HMCS Iroquois has been in reduced operating status since the structural damage was found and it determined the ship was no longer safe to operate during the Spring of this year (IIRC April or May of this year). With the tankers, HMCS Protecteur has been in reduced operating status since after her fire in May of this year and the HMCS Preserver has been alongside since returning from her last deployment in late 2013...... With the retiring announcement, all four ships will continue to drawdown personal, with the remainder of the crews removing stores and equipment in preparation of formal decommissioning starting in the New Year........quite a difference, measured in years, then if the ships remained in service as planned when said report was written.

So Saddam used his Western trained military to put down those opposed to him, creating a semblance of security that allowed him to provide social programs and general improvements to most Iraqi's lives...........but the current Iraqi Government won't be able to use its Western trained military to create a secure environment, an environment in which social programs and general improvements can take place to improve most Iraqis lives...... And your reason why the current Iraqi Government will fail, is because unlike Saddam, they don't apply torture and other nasty things against the Iraqi populace..........

A quick way for members of ISIS to meet the 72 virgins:

It's stated atop the page:

You've yet to answer the very simple question posed.... The upper echelons of Saddam's army and air force throughout the 80s were British trained, the remainder were trained by the Soviets in the 70s. The current Iraqi army was gutted of Western trained Sunnis by the Iraqi Government after the Americans left...... Exactly, provide internal security to Iraq with a Western trained and supported force made-up of Iraqis........the exact same method proven effective by Saddam.

I already answered the question........the AORs were to start retiring in 2016, and the Destroyers in 2017, the exact timeline associated with the pre-commissioning requirements for the new AOPS and AORs and project refinements for the new surface combatants.

Last months announcement of the early retirements namely...

Again said differences have been explained.......As stated, the requirements for transitioning to new ships, well crewing the existing ships, in the highlighted timeline posed the potential for further problems, due to the fact that one person can't be in two places at once. As to "dicking around", again you fail to understand that only one aspect of the timeline has shifted dramatically.........the new ships are not entering service early......

No........said report was released late last year, found now by the CBC, post retirements of the four older ships.....

I explained the difference above:

Several years of expenditures reduced coupled with the now available personal is far from inconsequential in that timeline. Per the cited graphic, the retirements were to take place during the same period as the navy started introducing the new AOPS into the fleet as well as preliminary work being started on the two new tankers. This of course would have strained resources due to requirements of the existing (now retired) ships, combined with requirements for new ships entering the fleet....... Simply put, we would have required personal to both crew the ships we have and begin transition to the new ships entering the fleet....a difficult task when (at the time of the report) we were facing shortages across the entire fleet. With the four ships retired, said shortages have been addressed, combined with allocating additional personal to commence training for the new ships. x amount of personal divided among 12 frigates, 3 destroyers, 2 supply ships and 4 submarines equated to shortages and pressures among the fleet, degrading the fleets entire readiness. --or-- x amount of personal divided among 12 frigates, 1 destroyer and 4 submarines eliminates shortages and pressures of maintaining the older ships, thus increasing readiness across the entire fleet. very simple concept. Of course I dispute its current relevance.......the majority of issues associated with readiness, by the reduction of the four older ships, have been addressed in one fell swoop.......By addressing readiness (the ability to deploy ships) you mitigate a portion of the mentioned risk (the capability of ships deployed, granting an allowance of meeting what is required of them by the Government), with the remaining factored risk to be addressed with the mentioned interim solutions being explored as we speak. A far better outcome than buggering on for several more years with older ships (if they hadn't been in said accidents) and issues spread across the entire fleet, then facing a capability gap once the do go until their replacements enter service.....as highlighted in said graphic posted here. As I said, you or the LPC/NDP haven't offered counter solutions to a problem created largely by the previous Liberal Government.......So what is it?

Yes, several years represents x amount of personal, money and resources no longer spent on old ships, old ships that are burden to maintain. Yet you're trumping up a dated report, devoid of sought resolutions, be they ones already in place or ones under negotiation. Though, as stated by the head of the RCN, the navy as of yet hasn't been affected in such a way that it couldn't deploy when required by the elected Government, potential future issues with the force (as highlighted in said report) have been and are being addressed. If such measures include direct and indirect support from our allies (namely the USN) to prevent any future potential issues, I fail to see the problem. What would the Waldo/LPC do or have done different?

It doesn't speak of the early retirements....at all.......it does speak of the then planned retirements starting in 2016 for tankers and 2017 for the destroyers. The RCN hasn't been fully self-sufficient as a naval force since the Trudeau Liberal cuts of the late 1960s........And as mentioned prior, the Liberal cuts in the 90s saw the retirements, with no replacements (when there were numerous capable, yet low cost options present) of 1/3rd of our supply ship fleet, and 25% of our destroyer fleet.......these losses directly impacted fleet readiness from then through to present day....

In the graphic, in what year were said ships to start retiring? What year is it today? Hypotheticals? Or the inverse: There is nothing hypothetical about mutual support that we both receive and give with our allies when needed.

No, I clearly stated it doesn't include the early retirements........that is ~3-4 years of not operating said ships, which translates into immediate reductions in output of both manpower and resources, which now are to be refocused on the remaining fleet, which increases readiness. Interim options can be as simplistic as leveraging our allies for further support when required (as we have been both recipients and donors in the past), purchasing/leasing the already mentioned American ships or purchasing and converting a civilian tanker much like the RAN did when in a similar situation.

Canada abandoned cyclic naval shipbuilding on completion of the now retiring Tribal destroyers in the early 70s, during the then Trudeau Liberal Government's drastic cuts to the Canadian Forces.

I've read it Waldo.........The graphic not only doesn't account for the early retirement of the mentioned ships, but also includes an earlier introduction of the AOPS into the fleet, as well as no mention of interim options....... Additional ships to crew with our current amount of sailors increases pressure on readiness, likewise several more years of operating said older ships is a negative on the resources required to maintain them....versus decreasing fleet size, allowing the same number of sailors to crew fewer ships at a higher state of readiness, likewise, fewer resources spent on upkeep directed towards said older ships allows said resources to be focused towards the ships that are kept. With risk, there is no inclusion of interim options at all........as such, the presented increase of risk over several years would be altered for the good, likewise the increased readiness of the frigate fleet (post FELEX) decreases risk via their now greater availability for deployment.

That seems like the general idea, but doesn't explain the current status of the Port Royal.......none the less, much of the current situation could have been prevented in the 90s by the then Liberal Government with hot purchases of early retired supply ships and destroyers during the 90s draw-down.

He used his army numerous times against both the Kurds and Shia population in the South........post '91, it even led to a no-fly zone, which remained in effect until the '03 invasion....... I think we're talking about a different Iraq...........Evidence or logic? Are you suggesting a Western trained Iraqi army was never able to control Iraq?

It is true, none of her sisters (including Huron) have had similar damage found, but then none of her sisters (including Huron) have had a similar crash aboard......Sea Kings are not lite, nor are several vertical structural members below the aft end of the flight deck intended to take such a violent impact......it's amazing she was able to remain in service (and conduct flight ops) for another decade.........Other navies, including the Americans, have retired ships earlier for less.

Rust and structural damage in and around the engine room.......and what can be found several decks directly above the engine room? What makes you think a violent impact from over eight metric tons, on then 30 year old steel, steel that is operated is a corrosive salt-water environment, wouldn't effect the ships structural integrity over a decade later?

Why would I do that? You've yet to explain why Saddam's army was able to control Iraq with Western Aid, but present day Iraq's army won't be able to control Iraq with Western Aid......

As I highlighted, said graphic predates the retirement of four problematic ships........I'm not defensive at all, I've no issue with talking about issues our military faces, but I will set straight incorrect or in this case, outdated memes on the subject.