Jump to content

Canadian Defence News


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

In February 2021, the Department of National Defence revealed that the delivery of the first surface combatant ship would be delayed until 2030 or 2031. The first ship was originally supposed to be delivered in the early 2020s but that was later changed to 2025, according to DND documents.

so this is called the Program Death Spiral

cost overrun leads to delay, which leads to ever more cost overrun

and so on and so forth until the government capitulates and massively downsizes or cancels the program

they are certainly never going to build 15 of these CSC's

they might be able to get four of them, at a huge cost premium

but if Canadian procurement history is a guide

what actually replaces the FFH-330 and when,  is not at all clear

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

well I've only ever seen the CF-18s drop bombs on exercise once

and for exercise, that was unguided Mk82 500lb "Snake Eye" bombs

they've got the Mk.82 500 lb, Mk.83 1000 lb & Mk.84 2000 lb bombs

and if it's not danger close to troops on the ground, those can be dropped accurately for CAS

but the principle PGM for the RCAF is the GBU-12

that's a Mk.82 500 lb bomb with a Raytheon Paveway semi active laser homing kit

and recently ( in Iraq ) CF-18's have deployed with the Boeing JDAM kit for the Mk.82

in the end, the CF-18 can drop practically anything in the American arsensal

but Canada has only been using  the Paveway & JDAM kits for the Mk.82

in the unlikely event that the RCAF would be flying CAS, those would be the bombs of choice

the CF-18 is fitted with the Lockheed Martin AN/AAQ-33 Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod

so that's what they use when dropping Paveway or JDAM

the CRV-7 Rockets have been retired, those are no longer in use

Yep. 
 

So I believe the “snake-eye” is a specific version of the mk82 that has the high-drag fins for low level bombing   Is that what they were using?

 

image.gif.9f649c785785dd539b53a5a261c4d1f6.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Yep. 
 

So I believe the “snake-eye” is a specific version of the mk82 that has the high-drag fins for low level bombing   Is that what they were using?

 

image.gif.9f649c785785dd539b53a5a261c4d1f6.gif

these ones were just the basic fin stabilized version

the Mk.82 is just the bomb itself, the warhead

bombs are all assembled as kits

so you can fit different tail kits to a standard bomb

Canada used a different kind of "retarded" bomb, with an inflatable "aeroballute"

but you build bombs in the bomb shop from the warhead out

so you take a standard Mk.82 warhead and attach the Retarded tail kit, or Paveway or JDAM kit to it

Paeway-IV-Image-1-Copy-892x523.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

these ones were just the basic fin stabilized version

the Mk.82 is just the bomb itself, the warhead

bombs are all assembled as kits

so you can fit different tail kits to a standard bomb

Canada used a different kind of "retarded" bomb, with an inflatable "aeroballute"

but you build bombs in the bomb shop from the warhead out

so you take a standard Mk.82 warhead and attach the Retarded tail kit, or Paveway or JDAM kit to it

Paeway-IV-Image-1-Copy-892x523.jpg

Yeah I was just surprised when you said snake-eye as I understand that only applies to the high-drag config.  
 

Hey speaking of frigates theoretically you can also call the navy for a harpoon land strike now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Yeah I was just surprised when you said snake-eye as I understand that only applies to the high-drag config. 

you're probably right, I  stand corrected

the one's I saw were just Mk.82 with standard tail fins

but the Canadian "Snake Eye" was different from the American one

it had an inflatable drag tail which was half balloon half parachute, hence the term "aeroballute"

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Hey speaking of frigates theoretically you can also call the navy for a harpoon land strike now. 

IIRC,  the RCN has acquired the Boeing RGM-84L Harpoon Block II

it has the enhanced seeker with INS/GPS which can attack a land target

but who is Canada going to shoot them at and why ?

surely the Americans & British would be engaging said targets with TLAM's instead

Canada never deploys on its own, Canada cannot deploy on its own

everything Canada does is within an Anglo-American coalition context

thus any land attack would be executed by the 1000 lb / 1000 mile ranged Tomahawk

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

 an inflatable drag tail which was half balloon half parachute, hence the term "aeroballute"

Ah you sent me down a rabbit hole now reading about “Mk82 AIR” vs “snake eye”.   Apparently the difference in purpose is that with “Air” the pilot has the option to enable or disable the “ballute” retarders prior to dropping wheras the snake retarders always deploy. Snakeyes are apparently cheaper but also have to be dropped at slower speeds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Ah you sent me down a rabbit hole now reading about “Mk82 AIR” vs “snake eye”.   Apparently the difference in purpose is that with “Air” the pilot has the option to enable or disable the “ballute” retarders prior to dropping wheras the snake retarders always deploy. Snakeyes are apparently cheaper but also have to be dropped at slower speeds. 

ineresting

although obsolete

these days everything is done precision guided

bombs dropped for CAS now are all either Paveway of JDAM

you don't drop those expensive kits on exercise

but for war they use the guidance kits

in the old days, CAS could go very wrong

one time in Vietnam an F-4 dropped a full load of bombs on an American rifle company

they don't risk that sort of thing now

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

IIRC,  the RCN has acquired the Boeing RGM-84L Harpoon Block II

it has the enhanced seeker with INS/GPS which can attack a land target

but who is Canada going to shoot them at and why ?

surely the Americans & British would be engaging said targets with TLAM's instead

Canada never deploys on its own, Canada cannot deploy on its own

everything Canada does is within an Anglo-American coalition context

thus any land attack would be executed by the 1000 lb / 1000 mile ranged Tomahawk

Well the 124 km harpoon range is better than a punch in the shorts. If a target is in range then it’s in range.
 

During the Libya action a Canadian frigate (HMCS Charlottetown IIRC) shelled a land target with its 57mm deck gun. When RCN finally got the Block II Harpoons they referenced the incident as an example of how the upgrade was needed. 

Edited by BeaverFever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

So during the Libya action a Canadian frigate (HMCS Charlottetown IIRC) shelled a land target with its 57mm deck gun. When RCN finally got the Block II Harpoons they referenced the incident as an example of how the upgrade was needed. 

shelling a land target with the 57mm bofors ain't exactly land attack

land attack is strategic bombing from the sea

if it ain't "shock & awe", there isn't much point to it

I doubt a Canadian Frigate would bother launching Harpoon against land targets in any foreseeable scenario

the Harpoon on the frigate is a defensive weapon, last resort

"whoops, we ran into a warship we were not expecting and had to defend ourselves"

the role of the FFH is ASW

everything else on the frigate is a defensive weapon

16 ESSM, 8 Harpoon, that's not enough missiles to do anything other than shoot then run for your lives

the enemy can launch dozens of supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles

FFH-330 needs to stay out of those sorts of kill zones

the FFH-330 needs to operate in a Strike Group protected by multiple Aegis class surface combatants

with the sonar upgrades ( low frequency active ) & CH-148; it can be a good sub hunter

but its not a ship of the line so to say

even the American DDG-51 is not overwhelming

you'd need lots of DDG-51's to defend against an anti ship cruise & ballistic missile raid

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Well the 124 km harpoon range is better than a punch in the shorts. If a target is in range then it’s in range.

if the enemy is so weak that the Canadian Frigate is at 124 klicks from their shore

probably not worth the stretch to use a Harpoon, send a CF-18 to strategic bomb it

if it is a serious enemy, then sending a Halifax class that close to shore would be a suicide mission

16 sea sparrows only engage at 50 kilcks, and you'd use them up in seconds

then you have dozens of missiles bearing down on a basically defenceless frigate

you only have to look at what happened to the RN in the Falklands

when you get close to shore, you are a sitting duck

and those who are equipped by the Russians & Chinese now

have missiles that make Exocet look like a walk in the park

supersonic, hypersonic & ballistic, and lots of them

those could sink the entire RCN in five minutes

even the US Navy is going to remain far offshore, hundreds of miles away, while the SSN's do the work

if there is a Canadian warship which could get in close to shore

which could execute a land attack mission

it's only the much maligned SSK-876 Victoria class submarine

which could be loaded with Tomahawk, since they have the American torpedo tubes

TLAM has the same interface as the Mk.48 torpedo

I don't know if the Canadian Librascope fire control has the software to program TLAM's

but since TLAM is INS/GPS now, you could probably preprogram them prior to loading

you could probably load 12 TLAMs in the SSK-876

there's nothing stopping those from being armed with W80-4 thermonuclear warheads

FUFO ;  5 to 150 kilotons variable yield

presto, you're in the big leagues where you want to be

Canadian SSK's launching nuclear armed cruise missiles

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

if the enemy is so weak that the Canadian Frigate is at 124 klicks from their shore

probably not worth the stretch to use a Harpoon, send a CF-18 to strategic bomb it

if it is a serious enemy, then sending a Halifax class that close to shore would be a suicide mission

16 sea sparrows only engage at 50 kilcks, and you'd use them up in seconds

then you have dozens of missiles bearing down on a basically defenceless frigate

you only have to look at what happened to the RN in the Falklands

when you get close to shore, you are a sitting duck

and those who are equipped by the Russians & Chinese now

have missiles that make Exocet look like a walk in the park

supersonic, hypersonic & ballistic, and lots of them

those could sink the entire RCN in five minutes

even the US Navy is going to remain far offshore, hundreds of miles away, while the SSN's do the work

if there is a Canadian warship which could get in close to shore

which could execute a land attack mission

it's only the much maligned SSK-876 Victoria class submarine

which could be loaded with Tomahawk, since they have the American torpedo tubes

TLAM has the same interface as the Mk.48 torpedo

I don't know if the Canadian Librascope fire control has the software to program TLAM's

but since TLAM is INS/GPS now, you could probably reprogram them prior to loading

Well I don’t think the Halifax class was designed to attack mainland China of course but the incident in Libya and that type of conflict is what they are talking about. Those types of conflicts and littoral naval operations will not go away. On that mission Charlottetown was protecting allied minesweepers who were clearing harbour mines laid by Ghadaffi loyalists. As reported in the Canadian Naval Review:

 

Under Charlottetown’s protection, the Belgian and British minesweepers cleared a safe pathway into the port, allowing the harbour to reopen on 05 May.

The ship’s superior combat coordination and communications systems led to its periodic assignment as Surface Action Group Commander, in which Charlottetown directed the tactical employment of allied warships and maritime patrol aircraft in the area while coordinating patrol areas and alert levels for shipborne helicopters.

These same capabilities, summarized under the rubric ‘C4ISR’, standing for the ship’s command, control, communications, computing, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems, allowed the ship’s combat control centre to alert NATO to a major offensive on April 26 against Misrata by Qaddafi forces. Working with NATO air controllers, Charlottetown’s operations staff assisted with the coordination of air strikes that blunted the attack and eliminated several dozen assault vehicles, artillery pieces and a main battle tank. The ship had repeat performances on 08 May and 24 May.

 

 

Also IIRC the missile tubes on our Victoria class SSNs were converted to diver lockout chambers as part of the initial Canadianizarion refit. The boat’s original mine-laying capability was also removed. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Well I don’t think the Halifax class was designed to attack mainland China of course but the incident in Libya and that type of conflict is what they are talking about. Those types of conflicts and littoral naval operations will not go away.

none the less, Harpoon is a dedicated Anti Ship Missile

the land attack capability is very secondary

because in order to do a land attack, you need to find the target

the RCN only operates in coalition with American & NATO forces

so it's unlikely the Canadian frigate would be tasked with land attack inshore

that's a mission for the aircraft carriers

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Also IIRC the missile tubes on our Victoria class SSNs were converted to diver lockout chambers as part of the initial Canadianizarion refit. The boat’s original mine-laying capability was also removed. 

well they have commenced the Submarine Replacement Program

but right off the bat, in typical DND fashion, it's totally unrealistic

the RCN wants 12 SSK's

not only does Canada not need 12 SSKs

the RCN wouldn't even have the sailors to crew that many boats

the government has spent so much time trashing the military

so now nobody wants to join the military

the lack of esprit de corps is the problem

the first bidders for the SRP is Hanwa Ocean from the ROK

in conjunction with Babcock Canada

pitching a variant of their KSS-III Batch II SSK with lithium Ion batteries

90m in length, 3750 tons

ROKS_Dosan_Ahn_Changho_class_submarine.p

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

but right off the bat, in typical DND fashion, it's totally unrealistic

the RCN wants 12 SSK's

not only does Canada not need 12 SSKs

the RCN wouldn't even have the sailors to crew that many boats

Yeah they’ll never get 12. But in Canada if you want 4 you have to ask for 12, then wait 20-30 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

none the less, Harpoon is a dedicated Anti Ship Missile

the land attack capability is very secondary

because in order to do a land attack, you need to find the target

the RCN only operates in coalition with American & NATO forces

Like I said if the target is in range it’s in range nI could see it in situations other than self defence where the ship can operate closer to shore and is identified by P8 or CP140 or other ISTAR assets. As the excerpt in my last post Charlottetown was able to identify land targets for coalition aircraft 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Yeah they’ll never get 12. But in Canada if you want 4 you have to ask for 12, then wait 20-30 years. 

I view that as being a failed strategy

because the media easily picks these plans apart as being both unrealistic and unwarranted

resulting in the defence department itself not being taken seriously

so that you just end up with program death spirals and outright cancellations in the end

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Like I said if the target is in range it’s in range nI could see it in situations other than self defence where the ship can operate closer to shore and is identified by P8 or CP140 or other ISTAR assets. As the excerpt in my last post Charlottetown was able to identify land targets for coalition aircraft 

I still reject it as being some sort of "good news" story

considering that by this point, 

the RCN was supposed to have CSC with 16 x Kongsberg NSM

and Mk.41 VLS strike length cells for TLAM's

instead, they will sail the FFH-330's until they literally rust out, with ancient Harpoon missiles

the real story is ; Canada does not operate Destroyers

only lightly armed Patrol Frigates

and those are simply not survivable against near peer threats

and not actually capable of engaging in offensive action nor expeditionary operations

and that's all that Canada has, it's a not a multi spectral navy, more of a glorified coast guard

meanwhile, again, Canada's near peer ; Australia

has LHD, LPD, DDG, FFG, and coming next;  SSN-774

Australia is already operating two Expeditionary Strike Groups

which could even operate F-35B off the  LHD's right now if need be

supported by P-8 & E-7 & Super Hornet's from land

you are the one who said you hate how Canada is put beneath its station in your view

but who puts Canada there ?

it's not some conspiracy by the Americans, British & Australians to keep Canada down

Canada puts itself down, Canada does this to itself

I'm quite sure America, Britain & Australia would desire for Canada to rejoin the team someday

but Canada simply fails to meet the standard, by its own absurd ineptitude

you're posting stories about 3 RCR shooting obsolete TOW off of MRZR ?

that's pretty thin gruel, considering what the Aussies are up to

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/10/2023 at 9:23 AM, ExFlyer said:

I apologize but I tend to respond to attack.

EDIT: I had a long thought out response here to address your comments but changed my mind and deleted it.

Just to say, in the same uniform or not, I have lost respect for dougie. Sorry.

 

 

 

You don't owe me anything, i understand your actions, i do the same, in most cases when attacked... I just thought that with so many negative forces already facing soldiers , that perhaps we could find another avenue to solve issues between each other.

I appreciate the effort, i to thought a long and hard before writing my post, it truly was none of my business, But in the eyes of those not in the military's it paints a negative picture .  The event over the weekend had some effect on me, and has opened mind eyes a little more to hidden conflict members face everyday.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I wear your barbs as a badge of honour

you godless atheist Liberal Party of Canada traitor to the Crown

God save the King from the ignominious likes of you

 

25 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

come off the internet and find out how enraged the population is against government apparatchiks like you

I'd expect you'd be set upon by an angry mob therein

I have no fear of the righteous, they are with me

 

12 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

you are the one who shoots your mouth off about things you have never experienced

while I simply follow Canadian Forces policy

by only speaking about that which I actually experienced

More garbage and more useless videos.

Stay away dougie, you are a scourge and embarrassment to the Military

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is a bit old but it does explain some of the reasons our procurement system is broken...there is a problem with both political, civil services, and the military screwing with the process. I was not a big fan of Gen Lawson, an Air force CDS, he really never made that much of an impact on the military, i thought he would push more Air force things, but i can't really think of any accomplishment he made...he was responsible for canceling the tracked IFV, which i found mind boggling, considering we took regular M113 put the grizzly turret on them to give us the same capability in Afghanistan...and were still using them up until i retired in 2014...

Anyway i hope the next government fixes this entire procurement thing, that seemed to elude the Liberals after their promises. but hey I'd be happy if the military even made it as one of the election issues... 

More than a decade ago, the army had a plan to rebuild. It went nowhere | CBC News

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

More garbage and more useless videos.

Stay away dougie, you are a scourge and embarrassment to the Military

I served the regiment, colours & Commander-in-Chief

unlike you, who has openly admitted that you took a solemn oath to HM falsely

never believing in the oath allegiance to which you swore

come off the internet and find out

the combat arms veterans are not against me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor IT support hurts Canadian military operations, internal review finds

 

Just another problem of what is wrong with our military, it seems the problems are coming up faster than solutions. Maybe it is time for a stand alone service made by the military for the military...

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I know this is a bit old but it does explain some of the reasons our procurement system is broken...there is a problem with both political, civil services, and the military screwing with the process. I was not a big fan of Gen Lawson, an Air force CDS, he really never made that much of an impact on the military, i thought he would push more Air force things, but i can't really think of any accomplishment he made...he was responsible for canceling the tracked IFV, which i found mind boggling, considering we took regular M113 put the grizzly turret on them to give us the same capability in Afghanistan...and were still using them up until i retired in 2014...

Anyway i hope the next government fixes this entire procurement thing, that seemed to elude the Liberals after their promises. but hey I'd be happy if the military even made it as one of the election issues... 

More than a decade ago, the army had a plan to rebuild. It went nowhere | CBC News

The unfortunate thing with Generals is that they appoint themselves to the rank and positions. Generals make a list of Colonels and then decide which one they want in their club and then tell the Minister of Defence who get the rank.

They are now 100% political.

As for procurement. The military (Army Navy or Air Force) put together a requirement and spec it out. It goes to the various ministries and they decide how much they can get for themselves. Things change. A Request for Proposal; goes out and all companies that want to bid say so. We then have meetings with all those companies. They then tell us what is realistic and not. They submit bids with costs.

Now back to the ministries and whomever the procurement is for. Decisions on cost and what can we add or what do they have to compromise. Someone is selected.

Then the fun begins.

There has not been on procurement where there has been no requirement/scope creep. The Military seems to think that once the contract has been let, it opens a door to get what it really wants. Little things pile up and get bigger and bigger and more expensive and take longer and longer. The truly sad thing is we do it to ourselves.It happens all the time.

I have linked the supply manual several times. It does not matter if pencils or fighters are procured, the process is the same.

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...