Derek 2.0

HMCS Preserver HMCS Iroquois HMCS Algonquin and HMCS Protecteur HMCS Protecteur Which ones weren't in accidents?

To a degree, the loss of four ships due to accidents left us with a capability gap.........Their retirement, as opposed to attempting to fix two of the four in which we could, grants the RCN the ability to close the supply chains and training establishments associated with the ships, which saves not only money, but personal. With these freed resources, not only can the remaining issues from within the fleet be addressed, but also additional resources brought to bear for the transition to the new AOPS, AOR and Destroyer/Frigate replacement programs.

Saddam maintained security within Iraq on his own? No wonder they built statues in his honor, he was a deity. The previous Iraqi Government undid much of the progress achieved by the West in the training of the Iraqi army, likewise their refusal of a SOFA which resulted in a halt of training and support.

Saddam, circa 1990, had the third or fourth largest army in the world.........it was not manned by Sunni's alone, likewise Saddam's Government, with his deputy leader being a Christian........Outside of perhaps the upper echelons of leaderships within the Republican Guards, the Baath party and his personal body guards, Saddam's military, like Iraq as a whole was secular. Does the Iraqi constitution have no provision for providing internal security in Iraq? How do Western Governments maintain security within their own countries? How many has Canada supported? Riiight.

The review was released nearly a year ago, which drew from data over the previous two years........dated so far as to highlight issues with operating ships that are now no longer in service.........Of course you don't care, as you'll attempt to leverage political gain from a report that is no longer relevant, nor has the RCN been unable to meet the requirements endowed upon them by the elected Government. Your point is what exactly? Perhaps that if said ships were still in service, the RCN would face challenges in ensuring their readiness, so much so this could lead to the potential of said retired ships not being able to deploy at the behest of the elected Government? In essence, ships we no longer have, could pose future problems.........brilliant

Indeed.......as I said, much of the post invasion problems could have been solved with the retention of the Iraqi army, which then could have provided the blunt hammer to local security issues.........Such methods, namely empowering the locals under "parental supervision", allowed the British to control much of the World for centuries.......Of course, you Americans are new at the Empire game

So Saddam kept control of Iraq with a Western (and Soviet) trained and equipped army..........but the new Iraqi Government won't be able to control Iraq with a Western trained and equipped army.......riiiiiight Not at all, deploying Western troops again will only rekindle the same issues found with post invasion Iraq........ ......At most, outside of forces employed in training the Iraqi and Kurdish troops, you could see a further levels of special forces employed to aid in the effectiveness of air strikes.

Again, the report spoke to difficulties in crewing shortages and maintaining the fleets oldest ships..........Now that said ships are alongside awaiting their transformation into razor blades and pop-cans, hence no requirement to maintain, likewise their allotted personal totals (~800-1000 personal) no longer being required for said ships, thus allowing said personal to be placed in other positions that were facing shortages, the RCN has by default addressed issues highlighted within the report. The temporary loss in actual capability provided by these retired ships is mooted by the fact that all four were lost to us in accidents......Are you suggesting the fault of these accidents is on the hands of the elected Government? Or that the elected Government opting to replace these capabilities with interim types is not the proper course of action?

Not quite.......The review spoke to difficulties the navy faced then.......said difficulties have been retired, with positive results for the remainder of the fleet born out of those retirements.

Does the report not speak to issues encompassing shortages in manpower and issues with maintaining the older ships within the fleet? Now the result of retiring four manpower intensive ships, ships that due to age were becoming both expensive and difficult to maintain would be what? As to lost capabilities, did the report address the RCN in talks with the Americans to Bridge the capability gap?

For sure........not only would it put a big dent in Big Oil & Coal, but also Big Solar & Wind.......

And not inclusive of the retirements of four older ships that strained both manpower and resources........hence its dated.

If it comes to fruition, an obvious game changer.....in not only electric power generation and naval power plants, but also space flight and cheaper production of hydrogen for fuel cells......

As of a couple of weeks ago, Boeing has 10 unsold C-17s, with various Governments kicking the tires.

It was compiled over the two preceding years...........As to my knowledge of it, the same "source" that allowed me to "predict" the two American supply ships (by name) the RCN was looking at months prior to the public release that our supply ships were to be retired early, and that we're looking at American supply ships....... Now dated......notice from the graphic no mention of the early retirements of the two destroyers and two supply ships, which alters drastically the period of "limited task group capability", as will said period be altered again with the inclusion of interim replacements which are not factored into the entire report. Also, issues such as manning and sustainment of older vessels, as mentioned in the report, will also "go away" with the retirement of the four older ships, as will issues such as personal shortages in other areas now that ~800-1000 personal have become available from said retirements. My reading of the review, likewise the head of the RCN's response, is in context with events that have taken place since its release late last year.

Are you suggesting the Iraqi Government didn't need help?

I know that, hence a clear contrast between now and then (circa '03+) What army did Saddam use to control ethnic tensions during his tenure? How did the Western(and Soviet) supported & trained army of Saddam control Iraq again? I never suggested we send Western troops in..........So, which army prevented a protracted urban insurgency under Saddam? I never suggested we invade and occupy Iraq.........

I've only seen the report mentioned in your linked post.......... Thanks for the link, but I read it earlier this year........ I have chastised them when I feel its warranted (see shipbuilding thread or even the thread we had a year ago on helicopters) With that, as mentioned by the head of the RCN, the navy has yet to fail to answer the call when required........that is fact. Also, context is needed, for example, from one of the (now dated) charts from the RCN report: - The majority of the Halifax class, the mainstay of our fleet, have completed their midlife upgrade - The Victoria class subs are now operational - The Kingston class patrol vessels, that previously saw a portion mothballed due to crewing shortages, can now be brought back to service with now freed-up personal from the early retirements of the two destroyers and two AORs - Sea King crews are transitioning to the new Cyclones -Two additional CP-140s will be upgraded, giving the Canadian Forces one of the most capable maritime patrol aircraft in the world - The first AOPS will start production next year - The design for the new AORs will be finalized in the New Year, coupled with the RCN exploring interim solutions to replace the lost capability fostered by the early retirement of our current AORs due to accidents -The initial design requirements for the Frigate and Destroyers will be selected in the following year. Aside from the four early retirements fostered by recent accidents, which as mentioned will be partially addressed by interim solutions and the added capability found within the FELEX program, the RCN still manages to conduct the tasks required of it, and is in far better shape then it was in throughout the 70s to the 90s.........Though I have quibbles with several aspects (as mentioned in the shipbuilding and related threads), as a whole, the RCN today (and into the next 5-10 years) will be at its most capable in its postwar history, outside a period from the late 50s through the early 60s.....For that, I have little to blame the current Government for.

What if the elected Government of Canada requested the Russians help by bombing insurgents that are killing Canadian women and children?

Were the "pile of Western troops" invited by the elected Government last time? And how many Western troops are on the ground now? Would you consider it a "pile"?

BUSH LIED, THERE WHERE WMDs IN IRAQ!!!!!!

Libya is the North Dakota for Southern Europe.........look no further than the oil companies operating in country and which countries they hail from.

You mean exert pressure on the likes of Russia and Iran?

It's been reported ISIS has already used mustard gas on Syrian Kurds........is that the incident that you speak of?

In some respects, but then I don't understand what political advantage they seek with the chicken little routine over Iraqi/Syrian chemical weapons.....I've yet to hear of any of the coalition governments attempting to leverage said WMDs for support to bomb ISIS.......