Derek 2.0 Posted October 17, 2014 Report Posted October 17, 2014 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. 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...... Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted October 17, 2014 Report Posted October 17, 2014 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? Last months announcement of the early retirements namely... Quote
Smallc Posted October 17, 2014 Report Posted October 17, 2014 It's clear that one of you is in over your head. Anyway, it's now known that we, with 77 CF-18s, can deploy at least 20 CF-18s indefinitely while still completing our NORAD missions, according to General Lawson. Very interesting actually. Quote
waldo Posted October 17, 2014 Report Posted October 17, 2014 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...... perfect! Now simply qualify that, as you say, "dramatic shift"... how much did it dramatically shift by? Your whole nonsense premise is based on this - surely you must have a number? again, when you go from accepting the DND review analysis... to not accepting it? At what point within the timeline? Name the date... why are you continuing to avoid this... why do you refuse to answer? Quote
waldo Posted October 17, 2014 Report Posted October 17, 2014 (edited) It's clear that one of you is in over your head. Anyway, it's now known that we, with 77 CF-18s, can deploy at least 20 CF-18s indefinitely while still completing our NORAD missions, according to General Lawson. Very interesting actually. if you're going to squeak again about jets, the F-35 thread awaits your return... have you been working feverishly to provide answers to the questions you simply choose to ignore/run away from? Edited October 17, 2014 by waldo Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted October 17, 2014 Report Posted October 17, 2014 perfect! Now simply qualify that, as you say, "dramatic shift"... how much did it dramatically shift by? Your whole nonsense premise is based on this - surely you must have a number? again, when you go from accepting the DND review analysis... to not accepting it? At what point within the timeline? Name the date... why are you continuing to avoid this... why do you refuse to answer? 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. Quote
waldo Posted October 17, 2014 Report Posted October 17, 2014 I already answered the question........ as I'm aware the DND review report went up on the public DND/Canadian Forces website on Oct 14th... media outlets reported on it Oct 15th. You don't accept the report; you claim it is outdated. Why is an "outdated" report left up, as is... without qualification advising to the datedness and the readiness summation, particularly given media scrutiny? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted October 17, 2014 Report Posted October 17, 2014 as I'm aware the DND review report went up on the public DND/Canadian Forces website on Oct 14th... media outlets reported on it Oct 15th. You don't accept the report; you claim it is outdated. Why is an "outdated" report left up, as is... without qualification advising to the datedness and the readiness summation, particularly given media scrutiny? It's stated atop the page: This report presents the findings and recommendations of the evaluation of the Naval Forces Program activities within the Department of National Defence (DND). The evaluation was conducted by Chief Review Services (CRS) between November 2012 and July 2013 as a component of the DND/Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) Five-Year Evaluation Plan (fiscal year (FY) 2012/13 to 2016/17), and in compliance with the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) Policy on Evaluation (2009). As per the TBS policy, the evaluation examines the relevance and the performance of the program over a five-year period (2008-2013). Quote
waldo Posted October 18, 2014 Report Posted October 18, 2014 do you think you're adding anything to your argument here? Are you disputing the report has now just been publicly released?... hence the media coverage of it. Thanks for bold-highlighting/confirming the evaluation period - 2008-to-2013. And this is dated?... you're calling this report dated? What period would you identify as "not dated"? Check the bottom of the page for a lastmod date: Date Modified: 2014-10-14 the premise of your argument is based on the forced retirements (re: accidents) of the 4 ships you keep speaking to. Given that, why do you refuse to put dates down for the 4 ships forced retirements (re: accidents); I'll ask you again for them... and you can answer where those dates fit within the DND report evaluation period. And let's have you specifically state what the DND analysis/report got wrong... waiting... Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted October 18, 2014 Report Posted October 18, 2014 do you think you're adding anything to your argument here? Are you disputing the report has now just been publicly released?... hence the media coverage of it. Thanks for bold-highlighting/confirming the evaluation period - 2008-to-2013. And this is dated?... you're calling this report dated? What period would you identify as "not dated"? Check the bottom of the page for a lastmod date: Date Modified: 2014-10-14 Are you suggesting the reports self stated evaluation period is wrong? the premise of your argument is based on the forced retirements (re: accidents) of the 4 ships you keep speaking to. Given that, why do you refuse to put dates down for the 4 ships forced retirements (re: accidents); I'll ask you again for them... and you can answer where those dates fit within the DND report evaluation period. And let's have you specifically state what the DND analysis/report got wrong... waiting... 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. Quote
waldo Posted October 18, 2014 Report Posted October 18, 2014 You've never asked no, I did ask... you just blew it off. 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. you didn't answer the question... again, within the evaluation period, what did DND get wrong in it's analysis/findings? so you (finally) relate the dates/specifics, although your "reduced operating status" is telling in itself. And... you confirm this all falls outside the DND evaluation period! As this was the first of five reports (4 remaining now), I expect that if these "reduced operating status" events actually affect RCN readiness, that will be a part of the next iteration... the next report! Tell me, what were you arguing again? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted October 18, 2014 Report Posted October 18, 2014 you didn't answer the question... again, within the evaluation period, what did DND get wrong in it's analysis/findings? Very little, if anything. so you (finally) relate the dates/specifics, although your "reduced operating status" is telling in itself. What do you have at issue with "reduced operating status"? And... you confirm this all falls outside the DND evaluation period! As I've been stating since the start, hence the report is longer relevant to the status of the navy. As this was the first of five reports (4 remaining now), I expect that if these "reduced operating status" events actually affect RCN readiness, that will be a part of the next iteration... the next report!Tell me, what were you arguing again? The reduced operating status of the retired ships very much effects the readiness of the RCN.......but not in the manner you suspect. Quote
waldo Posted October 18, 2014 Report Posted October 18, 2014 and there we have it! Through all this you finally admit the DND analysis/report is correct... for the evaluation period it covers. The first report of 4 more to come! Like I said, if you want to presume on the impact of accidents bringing ships to your described "reduced operating status" level... a relatively short time beyond their planned retirements... you can presume on that impact, if any (impacting either way), being addressed by DND within it's next report with an evaluation period that aligns, in kind. again, what was your point of raised concern? The report gets made public... the media covers it... you now finally state the report is accurate... you accept it! Again, what was your point through all this? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted October 18, 2014 Report Posted October 18, 2014 and there we have it! Through all this you finally admit the DND analysis/report is correct... for the evaluation period it covers. The first report of 4 more to come! Like I said, if you want to presume on the impact of accidents bringing ships to your described "reduced operating status" level... a relatively short time beyond their planned retirements... you can presume on that impact, if any (impacting either way), being addressed by DND within it's next report with an evaluation period that aligns, in kind. There is no presumption required........specific naval trades that faced shortages, which in turn raised concerns with readiness in the report, no longer are in short supply with the status of the four ships......hence, the remainder of the fleet receives a drastic improvement in its readiness. again, what was your point of raised concern? The report gets made public... the media covers it... you now finally state the report is accurate... you accept it! Again, what was your point through all this? The report is no longer an accurate statement in regards to the fleet's readiness. Quote
waldo Posted October 18, 2014 Report Posted October 18, 2014 The report is no longer an accurate statement in regards to the fleet's readiness. and if your opinion means anything, this comment may be validated in the next DND analysis and report... but it will be properly evaluated in context with everything else that goes into the review, not just your myopic focus on 4 ships in an earlier than planned, as you say, "reduced operating status"! so, again, you have no qualms with the current report... the latest report... the report just made publicly available. The report that provides a summary assessment (with nth degrees of supporting detail) that raises concerns over RCN combat readiness through the evaluation period of the report analysis. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted October 18, 2014 Report Posted October 18, 2014 and if your opinion means anything, this comment may be validated in the next DND analysis and report... but it will be properly evaluated in context with everything else that goes into the review, not just your myopic focus on 4 ships in an earlier than planned, as you say, "reduced operating status"! It is not opinion but fact........ships that will never sail again no longer require certain, specific trades, trades that during the reporting period all faced varying levels of shortages among the entire fleet. so, again, you have no qualms with the current report... the latest report... the report just made publicly available. The report that provides a summary assessment (with nth degrees of supporting detail) that raises concerns over RCN combat readiness through the evaluation period of the report analysis. It is not a current report......as I made clear, the report was valid over the period of time that it was written and offers a snapshot in time of readiness levels in said reporting period......which have changed since its completion. Quote
waldo Posted October 18, 2014 Report Posted October 18, 2014 It is not opinion but fact........ ......which have changed since its completion. and your claimed opinion on your claimed change in RCN combat readiness will be up for evaluation within the next DND's report evaluation period; again, an expected exhaustive and all-encompassing review to match the degree of due-diligence under display within the current review/report..... one that will most certainly cover more than your myopic fixation with 4 ships shifting status by relatively minimal periods (as compared to planned). Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted October 18, 2014 Report Posted October 18, 2014 and your claimed opinion on your claimed change in RCN combat readiness will be up for evaluation within the next DND's report evaluation period; again, an expected exhaustive and all-encompassing review to match the degree of due-diligence under display within the current review/report..... one that will most certainly cover more than your myopic fixation with 4 ships shifting status by relatively minimal periods (as compared to planned). Again, not an opinion but fact........with the bulk of each ships crews already reassigned to other postings across the fleet, training establishments and ashore. The only myopic view is yours, in that you clearly fail to understand that 800-1000 personal made available, right now, several years ahead of envisioned in said report, will improve the deficits in readiness found within said report. Quote
waldo Posted October 18, 2014 Report Posted October 18, 2014 Again, not an opinion but fact........with the bulk of each ships crews already reassigned to other postings across the fleet, training establishments and ashore. The only myopic view is yours, in that you clearly fail to understand that 800-1000 personal made available, right now, several years ahead of envisioned in said report, will improve the deficits in readiness found within said report. no - your opinion may, or may not, prove out when DND does it's next scheduled analysis of RCN combat readiness and releases the accompanying report to that analysis. you sure went a long, long way to finally state/accept the accuracy of the current/latest DND analysis & report. Thanks for playing. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted October 18, 2014 Report Posted October 18, 2014 no - your opinion may, or may not, prove out when DND does it's next scheduled analysis of RCN combat readiness and releases the accompanying report to that analysis. Again, no opinion.........or do you suggest the RCN won't apply said 800-1000 men and women to address shortages, which in turn led to readiness issues as presented in the now dated report? you sure went a long, long way to finally state/accept the accuracy of the current/latest DND analysis & report. Thanks for playing. I never questioned its accuracy from the period in which it represented, but your implication that its depicts current levels of readiness within the RCN. Quote
waldo Posted October 18, 2014 Report Posted October 18, 2014 Again, no opinion......... it is your opinion, nothing more, nothing less! Unless you're now claiming to usurp the DND in it's role in that regard. Again, the next DND analysis/report will speak to your opinion... in context, along with everything else that goes into that DND analysis. I never questioned its accuracy from the period in which it represented, but your implication that its depicts current levels of readiness within the RCN. the only part of the DND report that I've read that covers a period beyond the formal evaluation period, is that 'risk versus readiness' graphic that offers a projection on the full 5-cycle period the complete complement of DND iterative reports will cover. The next DND analyis/report will, quite obviously, revisit that projection... and in that regard, your myopic fixation/opinion may, or may not, have implications to that overall projection. Again, only the next DND report will be the definitive determiner of that DND graphic... ya think! Oh wait, that's unless you're claming to usurp the position/authority of the DND in that regard... is that what you're saying here? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted October 18, 2014 Report Posted October 18, 2014 it is your opinion, nothing more, nothing less! Unless you're now claiming to usurp the DND in it's role in that regard. Again, the next DND analysis/report will speak to your opinion... in context, along with everything else that goes into that DND analysis. No its not........or do you deny the shift in manpower requirements post retirement of said four ships? the only part of the DND report that I've read that covers a period beyond the formal evaluation period, is that 'risk versus readiness' graphic that offers a projection on the full 5-cycle period the complete complement of DND iterative reports will cover. The next DND analyis/report will, quite obviously, revisit that projection... and in that regard, your myopic fixation/opinion may, or may not, have implications to that overall projection. Again, only the next DND report will be the definitive determiner of that DND graphic... ya think! Oh wait, that's unless you're claming to usurp the position/authority of the DND in that regard... is that what you're saying here? What period in time did the report cover and what year is it today? What differences in manpower did the RCN have during the reporting period versus today? Quote
waldo Posted October 18, 2014 Report Posted October 18, 2014 No its not........or do you deny the shift in manpower requirements post retirement of said four ships? What period in time did the report cover and what year is it today? What differences in manpower did the RCN have during the reporting period versus today? your personal opinion continues to be noted, to be acknowledged. Please wait for the next DND analysis/report to advise whether or not your personal opinion means jack! Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted October 18, 2014 Report Posted October 18, 2014 your personal opinion continues to be noted, to be acknowledged. Please wait for the next DND analysis/report to advise whether or not your personal opinion means jack! As noted, not opinion, but fact........or does the Waldo suggest that by retiring said ships, the RCN won't ease the reported burdens associated with not only upkeep of the older ships (now retired), but will still face manpower shortages despite freeing up ~800-1000 personal that manned them? Does the Waldo feel such reported issues, namely the upkeep of said retired ships and entailing crew shortages, will increase or stay the same once the next report is released? Very simple question Waldo Quote
waldo Posted October 18, 2014 Report Posted October 18, 2014 Very simple question Waldo yes, it is! I'll ask it of you once again: "are you usurping the position/authority of the DND to analyze and provide assessment on the level of RCN combat readiness?" If not, as repeatedly stated, your personal opinion has been noted and acknowledged. Again, you'll need to wait for DND's next iterative effort in this regard; you'll have to wait to see if your myopic fixation will have any bearing on the next DND review/report. 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.