Smallc Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 I really hope they go forward with the C-17 purchase...those it would be nice if they doubled the size of the fleet rather than just buying 1. Quote
waldo Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 Thanks for the link, but I read it earlier this year........ the review is dated Dec,2013... from a couple of references I've read, it was just released publicly (hence the media coverage). So you read it earlier this year... how? it's the latest report. Your longish list is compromised of mostly "can/will" type references. 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. not sure how... and why... you choose to dispute DND's own review. Per norm, your reading of that pointed review link I provided is most selective! Key Finding 4: During recent years there has been a steady decline in the RCN’s ability to achieve the required levels of readiness, to the point that it is currently challenged to meet some of its readiness requirements. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 the review is dated Dec,2013... from a couple of references I've read, it was just released publicly (hence the media coverage). So you read it earlier this year... how? 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....... it's the latest report. Your longish list is compromised of mostly "can/will" type references. 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. not sure how... and why... you choose to dispute DND's own review. Per norm, your reading of that pointed review link I provided is most selective! 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. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 I really hope they go forward with the C-17 purchase...those it would be nice if they doubled the size of the fleet rather than just buying 1. As of a couple of weeks ago, Boeing has 10 unsold C-17s, with various Governments kicking the tires. Quote
waldo Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 It was compiled over the two preceding years........... Now dated...... released Dec 2013... updated to July 2013. It's the latest report. I'll wait for some manner of more detailed RCN counter to the report. But hey now, I thought the DND and RCN played for the same team - no? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 released Dec 2013... updated to July 2013. It's the latest report. I'll wait for some manner of more detailed RCN counter to the report. But hey now, I thought the DND and RCN played for the same team - no? And not inclusive of the retirements of four older ships that strained both manpower and resources........hence its dated. Quote
waldo Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 And not inclusive of the retirements of four older ships that strained both manpower and resources........hence its dated. dated? Is it? You'll need to choose your words better... as I said, your laundry list was mostly made up of 'can & will' type references... you're mixing your tenses and drawing upon a "futures" outcome from the modernization program, hey! As you said: "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" Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 dated? Is it? You'll need to choose your words better... as I said, your laundry list was mostly made up of 'can & will' type references... you're mixing your tenses and drawing upon a "futures" outcome from the modernization program, hey! As you said: "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" 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? Quote
waldo Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 are you arguing with yourself? You've confirmed the review's assessment on readiness with your own profiled example... you can't claim "dated" when your resolution isn't there yet! Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 are you arguing with yourself? You've confirmed the review's assessment on readiness with your own profiled example... you can't claim "dated" when your resolution isn't there yet! 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. Quote
waldo Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 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. you saying it doesn't make it so. Again, your futures/possible "can, will" are not, as you say, "retired difficulties". Again, you can't claim "dated" when your resolution isn't there yet! Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 you saying it doesn't make it so. Again, your futures/possible "can, will" are not, as you say, "retired difficulties". Again, you can't claim "dated" when your resolution isn't there yet! 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? Quote
waldo Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 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...... who cares! DND wrote a review critical of RCN readiness... at most, the review is ~ a year old. You can talk forever about what the RCN can/will do to improve on their readiness deficiences... when the improvements are done, they'll actually mean something. If nothing else, I expect the review process would have helped to highlight deficiences to the RCN during the review undertaking... would have helped to guide the RCN in improvement planning. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 who cares! DND wrote a review critical of RCN readiness... at most, the review is ~ a year old. You can talk forever about what the RCN can/will do to improve on their readiness deficiences... when the improvements are done, they'll actually mean something. If nothing else, I expect the review process would have helped to highlight deficiences to the RCN during the review undertaking... would have helped to guide the RCN in improvement planning. 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 Quote
Smallc Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 Exactly - although retiring the ships left us with somewhat of a capability gap, it also addressed most of the issues with the Royal Canadian Navy - namely, the age of its fleet and the cost and readiness problems that go along with that as well as manning issues. By having a less capable fleet, in this circumstance, operationally, Canada actually ends up with a more capable fleet that is more ready to deploy. That will be even more true when the last few ships finish their FELEX/HCMP main components. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 Exactly - although retiring the ships left us with somewhat of a capability gap, it also addressed most of the issues with the Royal Canadian Navy - namely, the age of its fleet and the cost and readiness problems that go along with that as well as manning issues. By having a less capable fleet, in this circumstance, operationally, Canada actually ends up with a more capable fleet that is more ready to deploy. That will be even more true when the last few ships finish their FELEX/HCMP main components. 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. Quote
waldo Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 Your point is what exactly? is that my "said" point? Not sure why you're so defensive... oh, that's right, you're the guy labeling me as seeking political gain in highlighting the DND review! Look, you're the guy that posted the graphic... the most revealing timeline graphic that shows readiness only begins to improve ~ 2018 and doesn't shift above related risk until around ~ 2020... no matter how much you shout out "can, will" improve readiness and claim the review is dated! . Quote
waldo Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 To a degree, the loss of four ships due to accidents left us with a capability gap......... why so many accidents... high profile accidents? Were they not ready? Quote
Smallc Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 To be fair, one of the AORS and one of the DDGs (the East Coast ones) weren't in acciddents. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 To be fair, one of the AORS and one of the DDGs (the East Coast ones) weren't in acciddents. HMCS Preserver HMCS Iroquois HMCS Algonquin and HMCS Protecteur HMCS Protecteur Which ones weren't in accidents? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 is that my "said" point? Not sure why you're so defensive... oh, that's right, you're the guy labeling me as seeking political gain in highlighting the DND review! Look, you're the guy that posted the graphic... the most revealing timeline graphic that shows readiness only begins to improve ~ 2018 and doesn't shift above related risk until around ~ 2020... no matter how much you shout out "can, will" improve readiness and claim the review is dated! . 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. Quote
Smallc Posted October 17, 2014 Report Posted October 17, 2014 (edited) HMCS Preserver HMCS Iroquois HMCS Algonquin and HMCS Protecteur HMCS Protecteur Which ones weren't in accidents? I forgot about preserver...but Iroquois was sidelined for a totally different reason - rust.I doubt the seathing did that. Edited October 17, 2014 by Smallc Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted October 17, 2014 Report Posted October 17, 2014 I forgot about preserver...but Iroquois was sidelined for a totally different reason - rust. I doubt the seathing did that. 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? Quote
Smallc Posted October 17, 2014 Report Posted October 17, 2014 That may very we'll be true. No matter what, the decision is good for a navy with limited money. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted October 17, 2014 Report Posted October 17, 2014 That may very we'll be true. No matter what, the decision is good for a navy with limited money. 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. Quote
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.