Argus Posted August 10, 2015 Report Share Posted August 10, 2015 (edited) Canadian Government finally grabs a brain: http://ow.ly/i/cj1C4/original Maybe they can find us a destroyer while they're at it? Yes, it's certainly better than nothing. But it's a far cry from the original promise from the government for ships that could carry troops and helicopters, maybe a hospital, and could also refuel and resupply warships. And does this allow the navy to downsize? The former provision ships were crewed by naval personnel. This is going to be a private vessel with civilian crew. Will the two navy ships ever get built? http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/high-risk-that-new-navy-supply-ships-won-t-get-built-documents-1.2436428 Edited August 10, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted August 10, 2015 Report Share Posted August 10, 2015 Canadian Government finally grabs a brain: http://ow.ly/i/cj1C4/original Maybe they can find us a destroyer while they're at it? You do realize that the military procurement budget is not there to buy military equipment, but to provide jobs for Canadian factories and ship yards, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 10, 2015 Report Share Posted August 10, 2015 (edited) Will the two navy ships ever get built? http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/high-risk-that-new-navy-supply-ships-won-t-get-built-documents-1.2436428 Not that this new ship is an ideal solution, but a ) that article was roundly criticized as misleading on the military board I visit, and b ) maybe the money could be better used somewhere else? Edited August 10, 2015 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted August 10, 2015 Report Share Posted August 10, 2015 Not that this new ship is an ideal solution, but a ) that article was roundly criticized as misleading on the military board I visit, and b ) maybe the money could be better used somewhere else? Wonder what they'd think of this article. http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-sinking-of-the-canadian-navy/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 10, 2015 Report Share Posted August 10, 2015 Wonder what they'd think of this article. http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-sinking-of-the-canadian-navy/ They wholeheartedly agree with that article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted August 10, 2015 Report Share Posted August 10, 2015 (edited) They wholeheartedly agree with that article. Yeah. I have to say their treatment of the military is one of the areas in which I'm most disappointed in the Conservatives. They were all talk and no action. Hard to see how the Liberals would have been any worse. Edited August 10, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 10, 2015 Report Share Posted August 10, 2015 Yeah. I have to say their treatment of the military is one of the areas in which I'm most disappointed in the Conservatives. They were all talk and no action. I'm also disappointed. They weren't completely talk though. They did get some things done (the C-17, the Chinook, and the Leopard II, and some much needed upgrades to our older equipment) but were overall a pretty big disappointment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted August 10, 2015 Report Share Posted August 10, 2015 I'm also disappointed. They weren't completely talk though. They did get some things done (the C-17, the Chinook, and the Leopard II, and some much needed upgrades to our older equipment) but were overall a pretty big disappointment. Right at the start, while the Afghan war was still on and the economy was booming. But the list of major military procurement projects sidelined, abandoned or delayed repeatedly is so long as to beggar belief. As to the claims by the Liberals and NDP that this would be just about their top priority, I don't believe a word of it. In fact, I'm betting that were either of them, or a coalition in power, they'd be looking to the military for further cuts in order to pay for their ambitious social program spending promises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 Wonder what they'd think of this article. http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-sinking-of-the-canadian-navy/ I wish macleans would do an article on the overall condition of the forces...maybe shock this nation into some action... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 I'm also disappointed. They weren't completely talk though. They did get some things done (the C-17, the Chinook, and the Leopard II, and some much needed upgrades to our older equipment) but were overall a pretty big disappointment. I agree to a certain point, and while i continue to support the CPC , if you take a look at past liberal performance they could match program for program.... The C-17 was a great program, i"m a huge fan, but is the issue or question was 4 enough, knowing that we were not completed our mission at the time, or what the next one would be, and how much the airforce relies on this aircraft for sustainment, and how many extra hours was put on the airframes to accomplish all that....While i'm not a expert in airforce things , i think almost everyone agrees that 4 is not the magic number, and we have passed on opportunities to increase those numbers, and with the A400M coming on line i think there will be more C-17 up for grabs....I think this was one of the failures of this program.... The LEO II-A4 purchase is a different story, for many reasons, we did over look the importance of tanks as a whole on the battle field, and just what role they would play in places such as Afghanistan, we spent bils researching other options such as the MMEV, or that damn assault gun mounted on a lav chassis...... all of those dollars could have been used in properly outfitting all our Armoured regts with tanks of some sort.... we finally came to the conclusion that nothing beats a tank on any battle field, and we purchase 100 used tanks, and rented 20 new LEO IIA6M off the Germans. first problem is those A4 we purchased were not all A4's but instead some were older models brought up to A4 standards, but while they look like A4 they are all not the same, each model has different drive systems, other mechanical systems are different, making spare parts a problem....and anyone familiar with tanks knows that for every hour it is driven it requires 10 hours of labor, driving 65 tonnes cross country at speeds that will snap a neck and you break alot of stuff.....this problem continues to plague our armoured corp guys....tank availability is not very high....and parts availability is also an issue.... While they are leaps and bounds ahead of the old C4 we had we purchased the A-4 model when the A-6 model was available, and in just a few years later the Germans introduced the newest A-7 plus...which is 4 generations ahead of the A-4. The chinooks , another great program, just not a big fan on how they were distributed....based in Pet it is a rare treat that they are seen at the other Brigades... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 The C-17 was a great program, i"m a huge fan, but is the issue or question was 4 enough, knowing that we were not completed our mission at the time, or what the next one would be, and how much the airforce relies on this aircraft for sustainment, and how many extra hours was put on the airframes to accomplish all that....While i'm not a expert in airforce things , i think almost everyone agrees that 4 is not the magic number, and we have passed on opportunities to increase those numbers We have 5 now. That allows us to maintain 2 - 3 in the field at all times. The LEO II-A4 purchase is a different story, for many reasons, we did over look the importance of tanks as a whole on the battle field, and just what role they would play in places such as Afghanistan, we spent bils researching other options such as the MMEV, or that damn assault gun mounted on a lav chassis...... all of those dollars could have been used in properly outfitting all our Armoured regts with tanks of some sort.... We should have bought 100 new 2A6Ms. We shouldn't have cheaped out. While they are leaps and bounds ahead of the old C4 we had we purchased the A-4 model when the A-6 model was available, and in just a few years later the Germans introduced the newest A-7 plus...which is 4 generations ahead of the A-4. The 2A4M CAN is a melding of generations, with components from 4, 6, and 7. It's apparently one of the best in operation. We still should have bought new 2A6Ms. The chinooks , another great program, just not a big fan on how they were distributed....based in Pet it is a rare treat that they are seen at the other Brigades... It's much more cost effective that way, and I support it fully. I'd support it with most other equipment that isn't geographically necessary as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 The point is they got the job done. None of this "Boy, we really need this new piece of kit!" then year after year after year goes by while they shuffle papers around and nothing happens, which is what's been happening since 2008. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 We have 5 now. That allows us to maintain 2 - 3 in the field at all times. We should have bought 100 new 2A6Ms. We shouldn't have cheaped out. The 2A4M CAN is a melding of generations, with components from 4, 6, and 7. It's apparently one of the best in operation. We still should have bought new 2A6Ms. It's much more cost effective that way, and I support it fully. I'd support it with most other equipment that isn't geographically necessary as well. 5, i stand corrected, but then the same question applies is 5 enough, keep in mind during Afghan mission there was 3 sustainment a week, some experts have said the magic number starts at 6, and those numbers do not include the initial deployment, or withdrawal.... Don't get me wrong it is a great tank, but spare parts is a problem, and every tank is not the same so while a final drive may fit one it may not fit another, a major problem in the field.... Problem with having them all in one area, is standardized training, the folks in pet will be familiarized with CH-47 ops while the rest of the army is not...that includes Lt infantry ops, resupply ops, what it does is give pet another tool in the box in regards to combat ops, that is not so much available to the rest of the army.... Same as the tanks, we have tanks in Gagetown and out west, but none in Pet....it becomes a problem with training..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 The point is they got the job done. None of this "Boy, we really need this new piece of kit!" then year after year after year goes by while they shuffle papers around and nothing happens, which is what's been happening since 2008. Thats why i really think any media coverage of the current state of our military is welcomed..... We all know the problems the navy is having staying operational.....the army although it has been the receiver of much of the CPC spending....is still in dire straits with shortages of everything and a huge lack of logistical vehs, to the point where i don't think any major combat unit could move and sustain itself without drawing its logistical fleet from several other units..... Yes there are new trucks on the horizon, but only large vehs,which will replace 3 to 4 classes and sizes of vehs....and once again not enough of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted August 12, 2015 Report Share Posted August 12, 2015 Well if the east coast wants the conservatives gone, they can kiss the contracts goodbye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 12, 2015 Report Share Posted August 12, 2015 Well if the east coast wants the conservatives gone, they can kiss the contracts goodbye. No government will cancel the shipbuilding process. I doubt any government will actually even cut the defence budget. Taxes are really the major reason to vote Conservative, and some of their other positions are really giving me pause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted August 12, 2015 Report Share Posted August 12, 2015 No government will cancel the shipbuilding process. I doubt any government will actually even cut the defence budget. Taxes are really the major reason to vote Conservative, and some of their other positions are really giving me pause. I dunno, a government that doesn't totally suck up to Quebec on everything is nice to have for a change. The immigration policy of the other two parties sucks, and their stated intention of changing the way we elect people to the House of Commons to produce permanent minorities and coalitions threatens the stability of our government. Pot is pretty damned unimportant compared to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 12, 2015 Report Share Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) I dunno, a government that doesn't totally suck up to Quebec on everything is nice to have for a change. The immigration policy of the other two parties sucks, and their stated intention of changing the way we elect people to the House of Commons to produce permanent minorities and coalitions threatens the stability of our government. Pot is pretty damned unimportant compared to that. I don't say there aren't differences (well, I did, but that's not what I meant), but defence isn't one of them in terms of spending and purchases. How they'll be used is a different matter. Pot is simply a symptom of one of the major problems I have with this government - that is, evidence be damned. Edited August 12, 2015 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 16, 2015 Report Share Posted August 16, 2015 Canadian Government finally grabs a brain: http://ow.ly/i/cj1C4/original Maybe they can find us a destroyer while they're at it? The Government of Canada, and the Royal Canadian Navy, already has a "brain".........in regards to the retirement of the AORs, as spoken too last year (and prior) the Government did/does have contingencies. When the purchase/lease of the two American Supply class vessels became too costly, in addition to presenting physical challenges in basing due to the ships shear size, option 2 was selected.....option 2 being the lease of two allied vessels: On the West Coast: On the East Coast: Filling capability gaps for deployments, well lending further experience to our two Allies (Chile and Spain) until the conversion of the Resolve is complete, followed by the completion of the Queenston-class......resulting in three AORs, returning a capability lost in the 90s with the retirement of Provider.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 16, 2015 Report Share Posted August 16, 2015 (edited) Yeah, I have a hard time believing that the government is going to give up the services of their brand new, rumoured to be about 40,000 ton (the biggest ship we've ever had) AOR when the two smaller Queenston class ships come online. Edited August 16, 2015 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 16, 2015 Report Share Posted August 16, 2015 By the way, the RFQ has closed for the Canadian Surface Combatant warship designer and systems integrator competition. It seems every western company with a warship design is vying for the chance to bid. I'm really interested to see the results and the base design used in the RFQ submissions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 16, 2015 Report Share Posted August 16, 2015 The Government of Canada, and the Royal Canadian Navy, already has a "brain" This has all taken far far too long. The navy has been left dry (forgiven the pun) for far too long by this government and the two before it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 16, 2015 Report Share Posted August 16, 2015 Yes, it's certainly better than nothing. But it's a far cry from the original promise from the government for ships that could carry troops and helicopters, maybe a hospital, and could also refuel and resupply warships. And does this allow the navy to downsize? The former provision ships were crewed by naval personnel. This is going to be a private vessel with civilian crew. Will the two navy ships ever get built? http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/high-risk-that-new-navy-supply-ships-won-t-get-built-documents-1.2436428 The former Liberal promise to purchase the Joint Support Ship, a combination of supply ship and troop/logistic/landing/command ship was dropped very quick with the change of Government in 2006........and for good reason. Said reason, of course is common sense, and is why other navies don't place leadership, troops aboard a ship stuffed with fuel and munitions...... As to civilian crews, that's not the end of the world.......the USN and Royal Navy are supplied with their own civilian operated vessels....the only drawback with such an approach is that civilian manned tankers are bound by maritime law on which ports they can enter (like conventional crude oil tankers) versus military vessels which are not.........somehow the United States military sealift command and Royal Fleet Auxiliary are able to manage..... ------ As to the leaked document in the article, its dated and not reflective of the labor market and availability of skilled trades (welders, pipe fitters and industrial electricians etc) due to the downturn in the O&G industry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 16, 2015 Report Share Posted August 16, 2015 Yeah, I have a hard time believing that the government is going to give up the services of their brand new, rumoured to be about 40,000 ton (the biggest ship we've ever had) AOR when the two smaller Queenston class ships come online. Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 16, 2015 Report Share Posted August 16, 2015 Why? Why give up a ship that you already have? Why not keep all 3? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.