Harper's Tough Talk on Defense and Russia is just empty words

[Smallc]

I didn't realize. Thanks for the info.

[bush_cheney2004]

..Other navies, including the Americans, have retired ships earlier for less.

True, but the Americans retire and strike ships from the registry for far more practical reasons of obsolescence, refit/availability, and overhaul life-cycle costs. It seems that Canada just pushes their hulls until they rust away or run into something really hard.

[On Guard for Thee]

True, but the Americans retire and strike ships from the registry for far more practical reasons of obsolescence, refit/availability, and overhaul life-cycle costs. It seems that Canada just pushes their hulls until they rust away or run into something really hard.

Really hard, like mathematics?

[Derek 2.0]

True, but the Americans retire and strike ships from the registry for far more practical reasons of obsolescence, refit/availability, and overhaul life-cycle costs. It seems that Canada just pushes their hulls until they rust away or run into something really hard.

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.

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

Sure...but the U.S. has a strategic interest in shipyard viability and capacity for many platform types. The Congress takes care of districts that have this capability. Canada has seemingly abandoned a strong tradition in domestic shipbuilding.

[waldo]

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at all, I've no issue with talking about issues our military faces, but I will set straight incorrect or in this case, outdated memes on the subject.

no! Whether retirement as planned, or 'due to accident', that graphic includes retirement (in the same relative timeline); specifically:

"Figure 1 depicts the decline in fleet readiness and associated risk, as the Halifax-class frigates go through the HCM/FELEX program, the Victoria-class submarines achieve full operational capability, Iroquois-class destroyers and replenishment ships are retired from service, and new shipbuilding programs begin to deliver product. "

[Derek 2.0]

no! Whether retirement as planned, or 'due to accident', that graphic includes retirement (in the same relative timeline); specifically:

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.

[waldo]

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.......

you've read the text speaking to the graphic including retirements... and you're stating the graphic doesn't include retirements??? You speak of "interim options" - are these like your "can, will" references? You know, not actually implemented. What interim options... implemented interim options?

[Derek 2.0]

Sure...but the U.S. has a strategic interest in shipyard viability and capacity for many platform types. The Congress takes care of districts that have this capability. Canada has seemingly abandoned a strong tradition in domestic shipbuilding.

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.

[Derek 2.0]

you've read the text speaking to the graphic including retirements... and you're stating the graphic doesn't include retirements??? You speak of "interim options" - are these like your "can, will" references? You know, not actually implemented. What interim options... implemented interim options?

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.

[waldo]

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.

so... to you, what does the referring graphic text (bold-highlighted below) that references "retired" mean... to you... what does that mean? Again, the text:

"Figure 1 depicts the decline in fleet readiness and associated risk, as the Halifax-class frigates go through the HCM/FELEX program, the Victoria-class submarines achieve full operational capability, Iroquois-class destroyers and replenishment ships are retired from service, and new shipbuilding programs begin to deliver product."

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.

so, again you speak of "can be"... I pointedly asked you for something actually implemented. You can't claim RCN readiness, as assessed by DND, is better than assessed on your possibles, on your "can, will" hypotheticals.

[Derek 2.0]

so... to you, what does the referring graphic text (bold-highlighted below) that references "retired" mean... to you... what does that mean? Again, the text:

"Figure 1 depicts the decline in fleet readiness and associated risk, as the Halifax-class frigates go through the HCM/FELEX program, the Victoria-class submarines achieve full operational capability, Iroquois-class destroyers and replenishment ships are retired from service, and new shipbuilding programs begin to deliver product."

In the graphic, in what year were said ships to start retiring? What year is it today?

so, again you speak of "can be"... I pointedly asked you for something actually implemented. You can't claim RCN readiness, as assessed by DND, is better than assessed on your possibles, on your "can, will" hypotheticals.

Hypotheticals?

Or the inverse:

There is nothing hypothetical about mutual support that we both receive and give with our allies when needed.

[waldo]

In the graphic, in what year were said ships to start retiring? What year is it today?

you tell me... you're the one that just a few posts back claimed the graphic didn't speak to retirements at all. Again, you tell me!

Hypotheticals? There is nothing hypothetical about mutual support that we both receive and give with our allies when needed.

you've outdone yourself! Why ever bother doing a readiness analysis and report on it? Your bizarre position is that "the RCN is and will always be ready... cause it can simply ask allies for help"!!! It's too bad DND didn't get your insight before investing all that time/money and interviewing all those military personnel. Yeesh.

[Derek 2.0]

you tell me... you're the one that just a few posts back claimed the graphic didn't speak to retirements at all. Again, you tell me!

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.

you've outdone yourself! Why ever bother doing a readiness analysis and report on it? Your bizarre position is that "the RCN is and will always be ready... cause it can simply ask allies for help"!!! It's too bad DND didn't get your insight before investing all that time/money and interviewing all those military personnel. Yeesh.

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....

[waldo]

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.

that's your distinction? So what? You're going to quibble over a few years in an overall timeline graphic that extends to 2024? I already drew attention to this and spoke of them (planned versus forced) being within the same general timeline:

no! Whether retirement as planned, or 'due to accident', that graphic includes retirement (in the same relative timeline); specifically:

.

.

.

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....

so what! The DND report speaks to conditions of the (analysis period) day! But again, your position is ludicrous, absolute bizarro-world. You don't get to ignore the raised concern of the RCN combat readiness state by simply stating it means nothing... cause we can simply ask allies for help!!!

and with that, we're done. You simply can't... you won't accept the report findings. Instead you craft this nonsensical position that effectively holds to a perpetual "always ready" state for the RCN... just call up Canada's allies for assistance!

[Derek 2.0]

that's your distinction? So what? You're going to quibble over a few years in an overall timeline graphic that extends to 2024? I already drew attention to this and spoke of them (planned versus forced) being within the same general timeline:

Yes, several years represents x amount of personal, money and resources no longer spent on old ships, old ships that are burden to maintain.

so what! The DND report speaks to conditions of the (analysis period) day! But again, your position is ludicrous, absolute bizarro-world. You don't get to ignore the raised concern of the RCN combat readiness state by simply stating it means nothing... cause we can simply ask allies for help!!!

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.

and with that, we're done. You simply can't... you won't accept the report findings. Instead you craft this nonsensical position that effectively holds to a perpetual "always ready" state for the RCN... just call up Canada's allies for assistance!

What would the Waldo/LPC do or have done different?

[waldo]

Yes, several years represents x amount of personal, money and resources no longer spent on old ships, old ships that are burden to maintain.

no - the timeline (and all the readiness analysis that accompanies it) accounts for the retirement... for the sake of a couple of years difference that the 'accidents' forced, the retirements are still factored into the readiness analysis. You're simply grabbing at an inconsequential 'couple of years swing' in when those retirements actually occurred within that timeline. Again, the retirements are factored into the DND readiness analysis no matter how hard you try to posture they aren't.

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.

you're the one calling it a dated report. It's the latest released DND report (Dec 2013) on this subject, one that was last updated as of July 2013... call it ~ a year old. You keep talking about resolutions... interim solutions. When I ask you what resolutions/interim solutions occurred in the last year that would call into question the DND readiness summation... you revert into your 'can, will' mode and talk of possibles. Which is nothing more than your like commentary about the RCN "always ready" since it can call on allies for help/assistance!!!

What would the Waldo/LPC do or have done different?

why do anything different? You don't believe/accept the DND review/analysis... rather you dispute it. In your mind, "all's good"! As much as you want to deflect with that question, perhaps you should answer a question I put to you earlier, that you ignored. Do you see an adversarial relationship between DND and the RCN?... don't they play for the same team? Why would the DND just release such an, as you claim, "outdated report analysis"... and have that analysis played out by media outlets?

[Derek 2.0]

no - the timeline (and all the readiness analysis that accompanies it) accounts for the retirement... for the sake of a couple of years difference that the 'accidents' forced, the retirements are still factored into the readiness analysis. You're simply grabbing at an inconsequential 'couple of years swing' in when those retirements actually occurred within that timeline. Again, the retirements are factored into the DND readiness analysis no matter how hard you try to posture they aren't.

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.

you're the one calling it a dated report. It's the latest released DND report (Dec 2013) on this subject, one that was last updated as of July 2013... call it ~ a year old. You keep talking about resolutions... interim solutions. When I ask you what resolutions/interim solutions occurred in the last year that would call into question the DND readiness summation... you revert into your 'can, will' mode and talk of possibles. Which is nothing more than your like commentary about the RCN "always ready" since it can call on allies for help/assistance!!!

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.

why do anything different? You don't believe/accept the DND review/analysis... rather you dispute it. In your mind, "all's good"! As much as you want to deflect with that question, perhaps you should answer a question I put to you earlier, that you ignored. Do you see an adversarial relationship between DND and the RCN?... don't they play for the same team? Why would the DND just release such an, as you claim, "outdated report analysis"... and have that analysis played out by media outlets?

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?

[waldo]

Several years of expenditures reduced coupled with the now available personal is far from inconsequential in that timeline.

what difference does shifting that a couple of years make? It's still factored into the timeline and the analysis... the 'accidents' simply pushed the retirement out of it's planned time period. Again, still factored, just shifted. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

[waldo]

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.......

again, one fell swoop... planned or forced retirement (due to accident). The 'one fell swoop' is shifted... but still within the timeline analysis period. Again, why do you struggle with this so?

[waldo]

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?

what is it? It's you ignoring the questions put to you; here, try again: "Do you see an adversarial relationship between DND and the RCN?... don't they play for the same team? Why would the DND just release such an, as you claim, "outdated report analysis"... and have that analysis played out by media outlets? "

[Derek 2.0]

what difference does shifting that a couple of years make? It's still factored into the timeline and the analysis... the 'accidents' simply pushed the retirement out of it's planned time period. Again, still factored, just shifted. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

I explained the difference above:

....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.

[Derek 2.0]

what is it? It's you ignoring the questions put to you; here, try again: "Do you see an adversarial relationship between DND and the RCN?... don't they play for the same team? Why would the DND just release such an, as you claim, "outdated report analysis"... and have that analysis played out by media outlets? "

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

[waldo]

I explained the difference above:

do you need me to again quote what that timeline covers? Are you claiming the new ships, as planned, aren't a part of the readiness analysis timeline? Again, all you're doing is dicking around with a shift within the timeline... nothing has changed other than the actual date of the retirements. You finally admitted to this; why not go the step further that you ignored. Put an actual date around the shift... state exactly the time period you're quibbling about? State the difference (and the actual date change) between the planned and the forced retirements.

[waldo]

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

lets try this again, another way. At what point (what date) do you go from accepting the DND report readiness findings... to not accepting it?