Canadian Defence News

[ExFlyer]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I don't see what the barrier would be to CH-148 launching anti ship missiles

it's the same NATO standard databus to connect a homing torpedo for an anti ship missile

pretty sure you could strap a Kongsberg NSM to the BRU-14 hardpoint

the issue is more that the RCN only intends to operate off of frigates

and frigates don't have the room to carry anti-ship missiles & torpedoes for the helicopter

for helicopter anti ship, you would need a larger vessel to carry & load the ordinance, like an LHD

OMG, you have no clue of aviation weapon system design so please try not to make shit up LOL

And you know that we only have the frigates for our helicopters.

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

OMG, you have no clue of aviation weapon system design so please try not to make shit up LOL

And you know that we only have the frigates for our helicopters.

well according to the manufacturer, the BRU-14 bomb rack can load the Konsberg NSM

it's the same bomb rack as used on the SH-60

and here the manufacturer promotes the SH-60 carrying NSM on the BRU-14

[Dougie93]

here again, is the SH-60, with the exact same BRU-14 bomb rack as on the CH-148

launching AGM-114R

the CH-148 is a Lockheed Martin helicopter built by the Americans

the Americans don't build bomb racks which can only launch torpedoes

it's only the RCN which limits what can be carried

the US Navy launches all sorts of weapons from their BRU-14's

[BeaverFever]

32 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I don't see what the barrier would be to CH-148 launching anti ship missiles

it's the same NATO standard databus to connect a homing torpedo for an anti ship missile

pretty sure you could strap a Kongsberg NSM to the BRU-14 hardpoint

the issue is more that the RCN only intends to operate off of frigates

and frigates don't have the room to carry anti-ship missiles & torpedoes for the helicopter

for helicopter anti ship, you would need a larger vessel to carry & load the ordinance, like an LHD

Assuming that’s true, MV Asterix and the future JSS would have space and it would give those ships a layer of protection. And the new CSC will also carry the NSM

Edited February 28 by BeaverFever

[BeaverFever]

31 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

You can criticize all you want but the bottom line is the decisions on requirement and tasking was made decades ago.

The procurement processes, and I was involved with them for well over 20 years is fraught with political interference, be it Liberal or Conservative and all the way down to the MP level.

With your defense of our defence system, you must know by now we are not an offensive Military. We, Canadians and our political leaders chose a long time ago to be passive  and only when we deploy because of our commitments do we do anything offensively and then, it is with so much oversight our people are scared to do anything.

All I’m saying is that the lack of missiles leaves the helicopter less adequate now. 

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

Assuming that’s true, MV Asterix and the future JSS would have space and it would give those ships a layer of protection 

I don't see the operational imperative

the main threat is submarines

and it takes a lot of lightweight torpedoes to prosecute a submarine, since they are very capable of evading them

thus whatever space you had available, would go to Mk.46/Mk.54

I don't see NATO ever requesting a Canadian helicopter to fly an Anti-Surface operation

frankly, if you wanted to do that, you'd send the CP-140's from Greenwood

 

[Dougie93]

16 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 And the new CSC will also carry the NSM

one thing to understand, is that in the event of conventional war

neither the Russians nor the Chinese are going to send their surface forces against America / NATO

because they would be easily sunk by the American & British SSN's

in the event of a conventional war on the high seas

it's going to be a submarine war

no Russian nor Chinese surface combatant is going to be attacking beyond their protected bastions

and the only way America/ NATO is going into those bastions, is if the submarine war has already been won

which would again be led by American & British SSN's against the enemy fleet

no RCN frigate is going to be involved in offensive surface operations therein

Edited February 28 by Dougie93

[ExFlyer]

11 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

All I’m saying is that the lack of missiles leaves the helicopter less adequate now. 

All I am saying is we got what we wanted for our missions.

Pretend all you want but we got what we wanted.

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Get over yourself.

you're the one who needs to get over yourself, REMF

since in your claimed 35 years of service, you've never once served in an operational role

[Dougie93]

15 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

The Canadian Navy is in it for real.

well my only service with the RCN was as a C7 instructor for navy recruits

but that's still way more time in with the RCN than you've ever had

well, except for when you claimed to be a "NATO veteran" because you flew on a navy helicopter once

stolen valour

[ExFlyer]

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

well my only service with the RCN was as a C7 instructor for navy recruits

but that's still way more time in with the RCN than you've ever had

well, except for when you claimed to be a "NATO veteran" because you flew on a navy helicopter once

stolen valour

Actually, as you know , I was on the RCN Cyclone procurement team. Part of which was building hangars in Pat Bay, a Training Centre in Shearwater and hangars in Shearwater to accommodate the Cyclone.

So, you lose....again. LOL

doogie, go back to your basement LOL

23 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

you're the one who needs to get over yourself, REMF

since in your claimed 35 years of service, you've never once served in an operational role

25 years flying with SAR, nope, not operational LOL

For sure it does not beat your 35 year sin your basement pretending to be someone LOL

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Actually, as you know , I was on the RCN Cyclone procurement team.

thank you for your service, spilling coffee on your shirt from an office in Ottawa

[Dougie93]

8 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

25 years flying with SAR, nope, not operational

what operations ?

you flew around in the back of a helicopter in Canada

what operation was that ?

Operation Pampered REMF ?

[BeaverFever]

43 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I don't see the operational imperative

the main threat is submarines

and it takes a lot of lightweight torpedoes to prosecute a submarine, since they are very capable of evading them

thus whatever space you had available, would go to Mk.46/Mk.54

I don't see NATO ever requesting a Canadian helicopter to fly an Anti-Surface operation

frankly, if you wanted to do that, you'd send the CP-140's from Greenwood

 

Is the main threat submarines though? No threat from missile-bearing ships or other surface: land-based systems?  

And a helicopter can only carry 2 torpedoes so if it’s so hard to hit a sub why bother arming a ASW helicopter at all?

CP-140s don’t have missiles either. The new P8s do, ….at least they do for our allies, with Canada y’never know. 

49 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

All I am saying is we got what we wanted for our missions.

Pretend all you want but we got what we wanted.

No doubt but we probably should have wanted more. 

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Is the main threat submarines though? No threat from missile-bearing ships or other surface: land-based systems? 

American/NATO surface forces are not going to sail into the teeth of the Russian nor Chinese A2AD

even in terms of missiles, the biggest threat there is going to be submarines

the Russians for example would not sail their surface fleet out of the Barents

NATO is not going to sail into the Barents

the fight is going to be at the G-I-UK Gap

Russian submarines trying to get past SOSUS to sink NATO ships in the Atlantic

NATO ships & SSN's trying to stop them

similar situation in the China Seas

the US Navy surface fleet will have to hang back, well beyond the first island chain

while the SSN's go forward to win the war

think of the Falkland Islands War

the war was actually one in a single engagement, when HMS Conqueror sinking ARA Belgrano

because the threat of just one RN SSN sent the Argentine navy fleeing back to port

that was the strategic victory for the UK, because Argentina effectively abandoned its forces ashore therein

that's how it works, the SSN is the "arm of decision"

that weapon which wins the war at the strategic level

[Army Guy]

8 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Dreams are not reality, they are dreams. Sometimes dreams cone true, other time not. Home ownership is not a right, it is wanted and desired and perhaps even dreamed about but it is not a right and is not promised by anyone.

I am still not aware of any active military members that are homeless. If you have evidence please share.

Post Living Differential i(PLD) s still available for those being posted. While it will disappear in a few years, it is still there and has been available in the past.  I know what it was like to be posted and the expense difference in various cities, but, we made do.

There were never enough PMQ's or single quarters for all the military personnel on most bases. This is nothing new. Exactly what do you suggest the Military do about housing? Anything different than what it does for the general public. The general public has to have 2 incomes if they want to buy a house. When we moved out of PMQ's into a house we bought in Edmonton, my neighbour asked how we could afford it. I looked in his driveway,where he parked his truck and camper and boat and car. I guess our priorities differed.

The Military pay today is far greater than it was in my time and it does go farther. We did what e]we had to to make ends meet,. so should they today. I cannot believe that you think the Military is underpaid. The Military, in fact, as I have shown, is very well paid and even you admit they are the highest paid in the world.

A CWO problem??? I was a MWO with 25 years in when I first made the money a fully qualified (3 years as a corporal) aviation tech now makes.

Habitat for Humanity houses are available for all that qualify. I suspect that most military corporals do not qualify (they make too much).I  do not know what the ombudsman has done or said about military pay.

As a MWO, I am very sure you could do nothing about your peoples spending habits. If they got into financial trouble you could only send them to counselling. I know I had to do that.

 

Home ownership may be a dream, but having access to shelter while working for the military is another , it is not a dream but a right, be that single quarters or PMQ's....those were the chooses when you and i started our careers. Not many military couples managed to move out and purchase a home, back when postings were 2 to 4 years then move on...Today postings are over 10 years or more, and there is not enough PMQ's or single quarters to go around forcing members out on the economy to fend for themselves...

I'm sure if you goggled the ombudsmen report you'll find it all laid out there...it was also reported on by the media, so most have covered the story...

PLD was adjusted a few years ago, and now is also limited in scope and how long it covers a soldier...it does not address the problem of affordability, for a young cpl and his family... Those posted to Toronto, Victory, Vancouver PLD does very little to meet those needs... you should check out the prices of homes in those areas, and tell me 75 k is going to be enough to afford a home... 

In todays market yes i do think the military is under paid, for lots of reasons, one the military is suppose to have PMQ's and Single quarters to allow for emergency deployments, and for disaster response or other times when required like to hold refugees etc...all of that is gone to save funding...another Most benefits we had back then are gone like cheaper rents for PMQ and single quarters, today both are based on what can be found in your local area...because Canadians complained and that benefit was lost... Another we are short some 16000 plus soldiers, what is going to happen when they all come back...They have to go some where...

There is a recruiting crises ongoing, there is already a program put in place to offer bonus, to re-sign but thats where it stops....Military is competing with the rest of the country for young people, and they are not stopping very long at DND's door, RCMP wages are light years ahead of Military ones , plus they have kept a lot of other benefits where the military has cut...US service members have a lot more benefits than we could ever imagine that make up for the lack of wages...not to mention they have good solid equipment...

Of course pay has increased, it does not mean for one second things are more affordable, i can remember going to the movies with 2 bucks , get in, have way to much popcorn and candy, with some change left over , took my wife out to a movie last week cost me 60 bucks, so that point is a non starter...

WHY WOULD the CO tell his subordinates to go this route Habitat for Humanity houses if military persons did not qualify...if you can't see the red flags I'm sorry this post is some what a waste of time.

There is lots of things that a MWO could do, getting them Finical conconciling is one of them, talking to padra to get them into emergency quarters,or emergency loan form DND  if needed, letting the chain of command know so they are aware of the problem, so not to add to an already bad situation.  get marriage counseling if needed because it is not just the member thats effected it is the whole family...Making sure that soldier knows he is valued which could be as little as a talk every week or so to see how they are doing...making sure he is attending his counseling...and they are getting something out of it...

Or one that seems to be popular is we could just Dump that soldier all together marking him as administrative burden and getting them released which sometimes is also the best course of action. not my preferred course of action becasue everyone makes mistakes, and sometimes need a hand up...

[Dougie93]

20 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Is the main threat submarines though? No threat from missile-bearing ships or other surface: land-based systems?  

And a helicopter can only carry 2 torpedoes so if it’s so hard to hit a sub why bother arming a ASW helicopter at all?

it's a team effort

first the Frigate detects the submarine, often these days by Low Frequency Active SONAR

once you have a contact, the Frigate launches the helicopter, while also engaging the target itself

but lightweight torpedoes are often dropped on spec

like you don't know exactly where the Russian submarine is

but you drop torpedoes where you guess it might be

so there is a lot of flying back and forth, from and to the  ship, reloading torpedoes

although this is not one frigate operating on its own, it's going to be a Surface Action Group at least

you'll have dozens of frigates, extending out from a Carrier Strike Group, trying to keep the SSN's at bay

Edited February 28 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

21 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

CP-140s don’t have missiles either.

the CP-140 is capable of launching missiles

CP-140 can drop bombs, torpedoes, as well as launching missiles & rockets, just like any P-3 variant

Canada doesn't buy the missiles for CP-140

but I'm sure the Americans would provide some AGM-84's is Canada requested them

[Dougie93]

26 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

, ….at least they do for our allies, with Canada y’never know.

the capability to launch missiles is really about connectivity

so there's a thing called a databus

that's basically the computer on your airplane which talks to the missile

when you buy American, that includes the American databus for your hardpoints, which talks to NATO missiles

that's all you really need, since once you launch the missile, its onboard computer does all the work from there

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

All I am saying is we got what we wanted for our missions.

Pretend all you want but we got what we wanted.

Thats a little short sighted by the all involved in the project...Which is a common thing in todays equipment purchasing, if it was done to only cut expenses with plans to add in the future i might be able to wrap my mind around it...but most likely it was not even a consideration...and yet in time of conflict murphy is going to raise his ugly head and bite you in the ass for your short sightedness.  

I remember our company doing tac vest trails in Afghanistan...keep in mind most of us had already purchased our's off the american PX and since it was combat nobody really cared.... ...The MWO and Capt over seeing the trails and how we used them did not really take into account our observations...meaning they had a tac vest that held 5 magazines, same as the old cad pat one, and when we told them we did not go out side the gate with less than 12 mags he told us we were full of shit what did you need that much ammo...he was a Princes pat...i was a royal so we already did not like each other...I invited him on one of our patrols, him and the Capt agreed...anyways we got into a 45 min contact....during which i walked over to him and ask how many rounds did he have left, his reply was none we has empty and one of my cpls were feeding him spare mags...the young cpl brought 20 with him in is small pack...that was back in 2007....in 2012 another tac vest team arrives in Afghanistan they say they have already made up their minds, the vest was not half bad...but by that time we were in the training mode in Kabul Combat had all but finished... today they are still working on a replacement for the tac vest..

This is the case for almost every piece of clothing we purchased....nothing but short sightedness...politics, and in some of cases incompetency on the military side...and nothing but incompetency on the other civilian organizations involved...

[Dougie93]

15 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

This is the case for almost every piece of clothing we purchased....nothing but short sightedness...politics, and in some of cases incompetency on the military side...and nothing but incompetency on the other civilian organizations involved...

with DND, it's all about the very narrow replacement terms

DND rarely if never seeks to upgrade

only to replace

so if Sea King could only drop torpedoes,

DND will write the replacement terms only to fit that narrow requirement

even if the platform which DND buys is capable of doing so much more

DND is never authorized by the bean counters to expand into those areas

so again, the BRU-14 hardpoint which comes on the CH-148

that's a standard US Navy hardpoint

it's rated to launch weapons of all sorts, up to 2000 lbs

the limiting factor is not the technology

but rather an utter lack of imagination in Canadian governance

Edited February 29 by Dougie93

[I am Groot]

11 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

There were never enough PMQ's or single quarters for all the military personnel on most bases. This is nothing new. Exactly what do you suggest the Military do about housing?

Build more PMQs?

[I am Groot]

6 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Leonardo to equip Canadian Armed Forces with counter-drone technology

Leonardo Press Release | February 28, 2024

Estimated reading time 3 minutes, 30 seconds.

Illustration courtesy of Leonardo

Leonardo has been awarded a contract by Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) to provide its Falcon Shield C-UAS system for operation by the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).

The company will provide a number of systems and a 10-year sustainment package that includes options for additional equipment and the spiral development of new capabilities.

How exactly does it 'neutralize' drones? Spotting them is great, but shooting them down is another thing.

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

the CP-140 is capable of launching missiles

CP-140 can drop bombs, torpedoes, as well as launching missiles & rockets, just like any P-3 variant

Canada doesn't buy the missiles for CP-140

but I'm sure the Americans would provide some AGM-84's is Canada requested them

C’mon. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t work so simply like that. The CP-140 has evolved a lot from the P-3 base model it’s highly unlikely we’d have all the requisite targeting hardware and software and our crews aren’t trained. 

[BeaverFever]

11 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

How exactly does it 'neutralize' drones? Spotting them is great, but shooting them down is another thing.

Looks like electronic warfare:  jamming its communication or frying its circuits or blinding its sensors with laser. It looks like it’s a modular “system of systems” and reading between the lime it sounded like it can possibly be connected to  kinetic weapons (ie guns). 

Edited February 29 by BeaverFever