Canadian Defence News

[Army Guy]

16 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

I have a very specific memory from my day in the reserve, on what was then called QL-2. The rankings handed out were total BS, people who were known to be physically fit given poor fitness scores etc. Basically it was a ranking of the LT’s favourites. So I take that with a grain of salt. 
 

Which is why I am asking if that actually happens. Do you have evidence that they’re going hundreds deep to find rhe best non-SWM?  Underpinning your argument is the claim that SWM=inherently qualified and non-SWM = inherently unqualified behind hundreds of more qualified SWMs. All I  asking for is evidence that this is happening. 

Take a look at the new CDS....and how many men were in that category....how much more proof do you need....Also one would need to find out how many people are white and non white, where the bulk of any numbers are going to be white....So my answer to you is this data does not exist why would the government research info that does not defend it's choices...

That being said explain what DEI is superior to the system we had....

[I am Groot]

On 11/23/2024 at 4:21 PM, BeaverFever said:

Canada isn’t a failed state or without national interests. However we still do dumb shit like have official songs that are about how great some other country is. 

We certainly aren't going to have one about how great Canada is. Not in this day and age.

[I am Groot]

On 11/23/2024 at 4:33 PM, BeaverFever said:

I don’t see that being a lie, she is saying excluding them from combat arms limits and ignores their contribution  

What contribution?

On 11/23/2024 at 4:33 PM, BeaverFever said:

And at any rate size and strength don’t matter as much in modern war as they once did especially artillery or armour which is where republicans troglodytes also want to ban women.

A 155mm artillery shell weighs 100 lbs. You don't think size matters there?

On 11/23/2024 at 4:33 PM, BeaverFever said:

Small size can actually be an advantage in many situations including armour where space is limited. Plus Women often meet or exceed men in physical endurance and pain tolerance. 

Women are far more fragile than men. Their bones are smaller, they have less muscle, are more easily harmed and take longer to recover. They have less endurance, and of course, far less strength. You should read the article by an American marine captain who was an absolute peak athlete when she joined the men in Afghanistan and what she has to say about the physical problems that resulted from that.

On 11/23/2024 at 4:33 PM, BeaverFever said:

BTW if size and strength matter then you would just exclude any male or female who doesn’t meet the size and strength requirements 

I agree. But that's not what we do. In most such professions, including policing and firefighting, what they do is either have different requirements for men and women, or they water down the overall requirements so women can pass.

[Venandi]

20 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

“because some sort of DEI policy exists on paper ipso facto the ranks and leadership are filled with unqualified and incompetent non-SWMs.”

Now you've jumped to total incompetence and framed it in a manner that suggests people with contrary minded opinions here are equating incompetence with gender/skin colour.

You're missing the point entirely and IMO, you're doing it deliberately and under the guise of "little ole me is just asking a question." 

Skin pigment doesn't make you incompetent by virtue of its presence any more than it makes your performance superior or outstanding because of it.... that's the point being made here. If you are doing the promoting, hiring, firing (or whatever), allotting extra points in a ranked merit system for skin colour and what happens to exist between your legs only serves to elevate individuals above their peer group by using a random criteria that has nothing to do with merit.

You could just as easily use eye colour, even/odd birth years, or cat person/dog person criteria... and if I were suggest that, you would immediately (and quite rightly) brand it as madness. And when you did, I'd ask you to prove that cat people were incompetent by virtue of not liking dogs.  

I could stand your argument on its head and ask if you have any evidence to suggest that the performance of women and people of colour is, by virtue of the gender/colour difference, superior to that of white males. The reason I haven't done that is because the proposition is ludicrous on its face. No one is saying that... and you know it.

If you were to suggest that any merit list position should be elevated based on being male and being white, I would argue against it for the exact same reason I'm opposed to applying the formula in reverse. And ironically, if you were actually to do stuff like that it would immediately be obvious to everyone and it would have the exact opposite effect of that intended..

What do you suppose that would do to attrition?

What merit list group do you suppose that attrition would most heavily impact?

The answer is it would increase and the demographic that increased it would all be higher performers than the folks you actually promoted... over time, you can easily guess what happens. I think you're actually getting a taste of it right now and I don't think it's working out too well.

Doubling down on it might not be the best plan but it is entertaining to watch once you're retired. When considering some of the LSD induced policy decisions of late, the question most often asked by veterans in the locker room is "WTF did you think was going to happen?"

 

 

 

 

Edited December 28, 2024 by Venandi

[blackbird]

Just wondered if anyone knows whether biological males who identify as females are permitted to use women's facilities in the Canadian Armed Forces.  This would likely be in accord with the government's woke policy for the CAF.  

 In 2017, Trudeau’s government implemented a policy allowing prisoners to be housed according to their declared gender identity rather than their biological sex.

KLEIN: Trudeau's prison policy endangers women and defies common sense

Apparently this was ordered by Trudeau's government since 2017.

 

[BeaverFever]

On 12/28/2024 at 9:05 AM, blackbird said:

Just wondered if anyone knows whether biological males who identify as females are permitted to use women's facilities in the Canadian Armed Forces.  This would likely be in accord with the government's woke policy for the CAF.  

 In 2017, Trudeau’s government implemented a policy allowing prisoners to be housed according to their declared gender identity rather than their biological sex.

KLEIN: Trudeau's prison policy endangers women and defies common sense

Apparently this was ordered by Trudeau's government since 2017.

 

I assume so. Famously, they put tampons in the mens room for biological females who ID as male so presumably they allow the opposite. 

[herbie]

On 12/28/2024 at 6:05 AM, blackbird said:

Just wondered if anyone knows whether biological males who identify as females are permitted to use women's facilities in the Canadian Armed Forces

Why? And what possible business of yours could that be?
The rest of us are concerned that they're equipped properly and afforded proper respect and redress for their service.

[blackbird]

It is my business to see that the Canadian Forces is run properly as it is everyone's business.  They are serving Canadians and we pay for them.

Women's rights and safety should not be put at risk.  Simple eh!

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, herbie said:

Why? And what possible business of yours could that be?
The rest of us are concerned that they're equipped properly and afforded proper respect and redress for their service.

well to start with they are government employees, so it should be every canadians business how they are treated or what policies effects them... 

SOME are concerned, for most it does not even come up in conversation, or they are to busy in their own lifes to take any meaningful action to ensure our soldiers are not taken advantage of by government ...lives that sign on to unlimited liability, meaning they can be ordered to their deaths without any recourse.....it use to be a two way street where soldiers agreed to have Canadians back and to risk life and limb to protect them, while Canadian civilians ensured we were not misused or had the equipment to do the jobs they were assigned to....it's funny how the PM drives around with a luxury armored limo, with security teams, made by the finest there is...and our soldiers get the cheapest bidder, as it is cheaper to bury them than it is to equip them...and today we think that is normal....and Canadians don't really care what our military looks like or does, if they did it would be a priority to fix or repair....it would not be in its current state....we are good at talking, lousy at taking action...

[herbie]

What kind of car the PM gets driven about in is not the issue being discussed nor does it have jack shit to do with the Forces.

You're missing the point of some Bible thumping retrograde making out thru his limited moral outlook that f*cking bathrooms are a 'problem' lessening the effectiveness or morale of our Forces.

I mean when you count on your fellow to have your back, you're expected to have theirs and are aware you could possibly see the blown to rat shit or have to tend to their injury or personal needs you're at a totally different level of intimacy that's nonsexual. Liuke family, beyond sharing a bathroom or seeing them naked.
WTF is next from this Biblical deviant, separate bathrooms for gays because in his warped mind they can't see a man in the adjacent urinal pee without getting a hard on?

That issue has SFA to do with getting people to sign up, improving morale or anything whatsoever. PAY them, equip them and give them something to do. Or even fewer will volunteer. 

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, herbie said:

What kind of car the PM gets driven about in is not the issue being discussed nor does it have jack shit to do with the Forces.

You're missing the point of some Bible thumping retrograde making out thru his limited moral outlook that f*cking bathrooms are a 'problem' lessening the effectiveness or morale of our Forces.

I mean when you count on your fellow to have your back, you're expected to have theirs and are aware you could possibly see the blown to rat shit or have to tend to their injury or personal needs you're at a totally different level of intimacy that's nonsexual. Liuke family, beyond sharing a bathroom or seeing them naked.
WTF is next from this Biblical deviant, separate bathrooms for gays because in his warped mind they can't see a man in the adjacent urinal pee without getting a hard on?

That issue has SFA to do with getting people to sign up, improving morale or anything whatsoever. PAY them, equip them and give them something to do. Or even fewer will volunteer. 

It has everything to do with it, do you think the PM gets the cheapest bidder....no he gets whatever he wants...soldiers get the cheapest stuff out there....

Once the liberal government started this entire war on military culture, moral and moral values took a huge hit...and it plays a huge role in people continuing in a career, or getting out with a sour taste in the mouths...Liberals don't want a warrior class in the military....they want checks and balances, diversity, DEI policies, that eat up valuable training time, and training resources....which none of that will add to your training skills as a soldier, nor will it make you a better soldier....able to close with and destroy the enemy...and with training resources already strained, everyone has already had their fill of this garbage...

Just for your info you walk into a female shower unit and produce a 6 inch penis your going to have to learn to fly, or defend yourself...they don't care much how you identify, and if they don't do it, some male will come in and do it for them.... now walking into the male shower units as a female and strip down , not a whole lot is going to happen except for some stares and cat calls ...they don't care if your family or not....stay in your lane....or shower someplace else... they are warriors not liberals....

 

 

[BeaverFever]

Canada to acquire an unspecified number of switchblade anti personnel and anti-armour kamikaze drones (kinda an awkward time to buy American though)
 

…In support of Op REASSURANCE and our continued commitment to strengthen NATO’s Eastern Flank, the Minister announced that Canada has finalized an agreement to acquire the Switchblade 300 and Switchblade 600 loitering munitions systems from AeroVironment Inc., to be deployed in Latvia. The $67-million investment will provide land-based precision-fires weapon systems able to reliably locate, track, and neutralize adversary targets beyond visual line of sight to a range of 40km. It will also allow the Canadian Army (CA) to develop and refine its tactics, techniques, and procedures for the coordination and employment of precision guided fires, setting the conditions for the successful integration of future long-range precision fires and loitering munition capabilities.…

 

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2025/02/minister-blair-concludes-productive-visit-to-europe-and-announces-additional-support-for-ukraine-and-canadas-contribution-to-natos-eastern-flank.html

Edited February 17 by BeaverFever

[Army Guy]

Liberals announce a new military contract for frigates....What irving is charging us for just 3....you should sit down for these numbers, over 22 billion....more than 7 bil a copy...close to what the british paid for their aircraft carriers....while the british are building almost the same ship there total price is 15 bil for 8 ships...

And the NAVY wants 15 of these ships estimated at over 100 bil today...compare that to the first estamate...is it worth the cost to pay for Canada shipbuilding industry....when these ships are going to be in the water for at least 40 plus years...and Irving will be in the same place it is now , 40 years from now....Somehow i don't think the navy is going to get 15 ships...like most navy projects it will be pared down...and Irving will dance all the way to the bank...

Irving shipyards contract should be canceled and given to either british or australian contractors, or see south korea have the same ship built for much much less. with the same capabilities...

[TreeBeard]

8 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

over 22 billion

We can pay this off in 3 years with a 2% hike in GST. 

 

17 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

is it worth the cost to pay for Canada shipbuilding industry....

I think so.  Building ships would be a great way for Canada to diversify its economy.   Every major shipbuilding country subsidizes shipbuilding, particularly at the outset   

19 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

while the british are building almost the same ship there total price is 15 bil for 8 ships...

Exact same ships?  Or did Canada change the design?

[Dougie93]

22 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

.more than 7 bil a copy...close to what the british paid for their aircraft carriers....

it's more than what the Royal Navy paid for the Queen Elizabeth class,

the Royal Navy purchased two Queen Elizabeth class carriers for $12 billion CAD

that's $6 billion cad per aircraft carrier,

so each Canadian Destroyer costs $1 billiion CAD more than a British Aircraft carrier,

[Dougie93]

32 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Irving shipyards contract should be canceled and given to either british or australian contractors, or see south korea have the same ship built for much much less. with the same capabilities...

same old, same old Canada,

what will actually happen is that the program will simply collapse under the weight of its own boondoggle

Canada will end up with the three most expensive Destroyers in the world, and that's it

the three Destroyers to replace twelve Frigates, the collapse of the Canadian Armed Forces continues unabated,

regardless of Donald Trump,

in fact, Canada is simply proving Donald Trump right ; Canada is not capable of being an independent country

[Iceni warrior]

13 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

it's more than what the Royal Navy paid for the Queen Elizabeth class,

the Royal Navy purchased two Queen Elizabeth class carriers for $12 billion CAD

that's $6 billion cad per aircraft carrier,

so each Canadian Destroyer costs $1 billiion CAD more than a British Aircraft carrier,

That's crazy. Although that doesn't include the price of the aircraft. Nor are they nuclear powered like US and French carriers.

 

[TreeBeard]

5 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

That's crazy. Although that doesn't include the price of the aircraft. Nor are they nuclear powered like US and French carriers.

 

It’s also not true.  In today’s dollars, it was about $9 billion each.  Don’t listen to the pretend military internet experts.  

[Dougie93]

8 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

That's crazy.

you vastly underestimate the benefit of Britain maintaining her warship building capacity,

so stop complaining about the aircraft carriers & nuclear submarines already,

these are the strategic arms of decision upon the high seas,

Britain's only ace in the hole, same as it ever was

don't be like a Canadian ; penny wise and pound foolish

[Iceni warrior]

32 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

It’s also not true.  In today’s dollars, it was about $9 billion each.  Don’t listen to the pretend military internet experts.  

I've checked several sources which all say £6.1 billion for both.

Today's exchange rate is 54p to the dollar so $12 billion for both is about right.

ETA if you still think Dougie is a pretend military expert then you have not been paying attention.

 

Edited March 17 by Iceni warrior

[Dougie93]

17 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

 Nor are they nuclear powered

never mind that Canada could buy nuclear attack submarines from BAE Systems for $4 billion CAD each,

bear in mind that the purpose of these Canadian Destroyers is only to escort American Carriers,

the Canadians are only buying these Lockheed Martin Destroyers to appease Washington,

at almost twice the price of buying a British SSN would which would be actual power projection for Canada,

rather than being Washington's token force tag along little buddy

[Iceni warrior]

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

you vastly underestimate the benefit of Britain maintaining her warship building capacity,

so stop complaining about the aircraft carriers & nuclear submarines already,

these are the strategic arms of decision upon the high seas,

Britain's only ace in the hole, same as it ever was

don't be like a Canadian ; penny wise and pound foolish

Senior Service gets the big bucks, same as it ever was. Although they don't have enough support ships or aircraft to operate 2 independent carrier groups.

Meanwhile, we now have the smallest army in over 200 years.

 

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

 Although they don't have enough support ships or aircraft to operate 2 independent carrier groups.

concept of operations, one Carrier Strike Group

then the other carrier is supports the United Kingdom Amphibious Force with Marine & Army Helicopters

[Dougie93]

21 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

Meanwhile, we now have the smallest army in over 200 years.

the British Army has never been about size,

the British Army was dwarfed by the continental armies on the Western Front in both World Wars,

in the event of war now, with the Americans pulling out,

the British Army would be the tip of the spear for NATO

Geroyim Slava

 

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

We can pay this off in 3 years with a 2% hike in GST. 

 

I think so.  Building ships would be a great way for Canada to diversify its economy.   Every major shipbuilding country subsidizes shipbuilding, particularly at the outset   

Exact same ships?  Or did Canada change the design?

So your Ok with 110 bil for 15 ships....your also ok with Irving ripping us off....looks like we are going to have to raise the GST at least 10 %  forever..., not to mention all the other equipment we need, you should just leave your paycheck at the door....

Please explain how we are diversifying our economy, once these ships are built there will be no more military ships...and at these prices who would want to pay ? 

Canada tweaked the design, but that does not explain the massive price difference...take a look at Australia's design very similar to ours the same Aegis operating systems and VLS platforms, not even close to over 7 bil a copy...