Canadian Defence News

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

at the end of the Second World War, Canada was the fourth largest military power on earth

only the Americans, British & Soviets did more

no disrespect to the Aussies & Kiwis

it's just an historical fact

Australia had 2/3 our population and New Zealand only 10% of our population. 

[Dougie93]

6 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Australia had 2/3 our population and New Zealand only 10% of our population. 

regardless, they simply did not play the central role that Canada did

no disrespect to the ANZAC's

but again, Canada with a population of 11 million at the time, was the fourth largest military power on earth

having faced the hardest objectives, to include in the Pacific, wherein Hong Kong was the worst of the worst

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Serious though the history of warfare is mostly a history of men with long hair fighting hand-to-hand…often in sandals or even barefoot no less.

fun fact;  soldiers being clean shaven dates back to the Roman Legions

it was meant to emulate Alexander the Great

since the Romans were actually displaced Greeks

all Western armies now trace their heritage back to Roma Britannia

the British Empire imposing Roman standards upon the profession of arms itself

Edited June 15, 2024 by Dougie93

[BeaverFever]

22 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

since the Romans were actually displaced Greeks

They were not displaced Greeks they simply appropriated Greek culture as they had nothing comparable of their own

Edited June 15, 2024 by BeaverFever

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

I blame the Vikings

nah, it was the Goths who deposed Romans military standards

the Vikings were in the northwest

the Goths were the  Southeastern Germans, from what is now Czechoslovakia to Roumania 

31 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

They were not displaced Greeks they simply appropriated Greek culture as they had nothing comparable of their own

not at all

Rome was founded by Greeks fleeing the civil wars

they constructed a toll bridge over the Tiber

the same way the Franks founded Paris

at the time, the entire north shore of the Mediterranean was Greek, it was a Greek empire

the Romans were to the Greeks what the Americans are to the British

the Romans did not even respect that which was Roman most of all

the Romans prized Greek culture as being supreme

hence why the Roman elite had their children taught by Greek tutors

if you only spoke Latin, you were a filthy Pleb, if you were a Roman Patrician, you spoke Greek

we Britons idolize the Romans, we place Latin at the pinnacle

but the Romans idolized the Greeks, and Latin was their lingua franca ; gutter speak

if you were a Roman peasant cursing someone out profanely, that would be in Latin

but if you were a Roman professor teaching the rich kids, that would be in Greek

Edited June 15, 2024 by Dougie93

[BeaverFever]

6 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

nah, it was the Goths who deposed Romans military standards

the Vikings were in the northwest

the Goths were the  Southeastern Germans, from what is now Czechoslovakia to Roumania 

The Vikings crack was a joke which is why I followed it with “seriously though”

 

But the Roman army had been “barbarianized” long before the appearance of the Goths, from at least early 3rd century AD. This was due to the army’s increasing use of germanic speaking barbarians (individuals and entire war bandstands) especially but not exclusively Franks, as Mercenaries, proxy forces and eventually recruits to the army proper. The Roman Army from this era onwards bears little resemblance to the earlier legions that are more commonly depicted and Romans’ outsourcing of the military to foreigners is one of the precursors of the empire’s downfall. The only Roman citizens who severed in the army at this point were those at the very bottom of society with nowhere else to go. The barbarianized army included axes and chain mail and a more open melee style of fighting as opposed to tight formations of previous eras. Soldiers in the army spoke theirs own language that was practically a creole of Latin and German.   
 

Second, Goths were not a singular ethnicity but a mix of peoples displaced westward from modern Ukraine by the advancing Mongols although he core group was germani   As they moved closer to Romes borders the like picked up groups from czech/Romania and after entering Rome “goths” also included Romans at the bottom of society such as military deserters, runaway slaves, etc  

 

6 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Rome was founded by Greeks fleeing the civil wars

they constructed a toll bridge over the Tiber

the same way the Franks founded Paris

at the time, the entire north shore of the Mediterranean was Greek, it was a Greek empire

the Romans were to the Greeks what the Americans are to the British

the Romans did not even respect that which was Roman most of all

the Romans prized Greek culture as being supreme

hence why the Roman elite had their children taught by Greek tutors

if you only spoke Latin, you were a filthy Pleb, if you were a Roman Patrician, you spoke Greek

we Britons idolize the Romans, we place Latin at the pinnacle

but the Romans idolized the Greeks, and Latin was their lingua franca ; gutter speak

if you were a Roman peasant cursing someone out profanely, that would be in Latin

but if you were a Roman professor teaching the rich kids, that would be in Greek

The Romans were not Greeks, period. Latin is not derived from Greek. The Romans were descended from a people known to historians today as the Latins, one of many groups of Italic peoples who inhabited the central “leg” part of Italian boot. Like other Italics they were originally sheep herding people who were nomadic or semi-nomadic and likely migrated to Italy centuries before Rome, possibly late bronze/early iron age from somewhere east or northeast. Nobody knows where of if they came by land or boat but some have suggested modern day Croatia or north such as the Danube region. Italic languages share a distant ancestor with Celtic languages who are also believed to have originated in that region 

Greeks only settled the southernmost parts of Italy: Siciliy, Calabria, basically not much more than the “toe” “sole” and and “heel” of the italian boot and the “ball” it’s kicking. 
 

Now to the north of the Italics at the very top of there Italian boot was a mysterious advanced civilization known as the Etruscans, from whom modern day Tuscany gets its name amd it had been there centuries before Rome was founded. The origins of the Etruscans are unknown and hotly debated. Their writings are largely undeciphered but have been found an island off the coast of Anatolia leading some to suggest an eastern Mediterranean or Anatolian origin. Put a pin that thought because it will be relevant in a moment:

 

The tl;dr is that Rome was stopover point for trade between the Greek city states in the far south of Italy and the Etruscans in the far north  In between an uncivilized pastoral group of Italic peoples including the Latins, some of whom who had a small settlement at the mouth of the Tiber that was convenient stopover point midway between these two great civilizations.  Influenced by both amd eventually falling under Etruscan rule, the Romans became “civilized”  Only Later, much later,  they began to copy Greek religions and many cultural aspects 

Lending credibility to this is the fact yhst there is a school of thought that the Etruscans originated in Anatolia (modern day Turkey) and only settled in Western Europe in the late bronze age or soon thereafter. The Romans’ own creation myth, (written by ancient Romans centuries after Rome was created of course) borrows from the Greek tale of the Iliad and claims that during the Trojan war (which is likely to have happened in the late Bronze age and Troy being located in Anatolia), one of the Trojan army’ greatest heroes mentioned in the story managed to flee with a large group of survivors as the Greeks were taking the city and they somehow wound up on Italy’s west coast, intermarrying with a specific subset of Latins and it was these special “Trojan-infused Latins” who founded Rome.  It’s always fascinated me that the Romans would choose to claim “loser enemies” of the great greek heroes as their ancestors but to me that just suggests some acknowledgment of Etruscan influence and an awareness of Anatolian origins of the Etruscans. Etruscan
 

Anyway Rome was ruled by Etruscan kings for a long period before overthrowing them and becoming a republic. For much of its early day rome was a backwater port town with a small population that became a magnet for fugitives, refugees, migrants deserters etc from both the Greek and Etruscan city states and possibly beyond.
 

If you have interest I suggest the creatively named History of Rome podcast by Mike Duncan which is also entertaining to listen to. 
 

Sudenote:  Greeks were bearded, which Romans frowned upon during the republic and early empire. In the second century AD, Hadrian became the first bearded emperor which was controversial on its own. He was also one of the first emperors who had been mentored under a strict Greek “socratic” style, which probably also included the infamous Greek tutor/pupil pederastic relationship as Hadrian’s own long-term pederastic relationship with his much younger male lover was also a major controversy (the romans didn’t have a problem with homosexuality or even pederasty but you weren’t supposed to publicly flaunt it and you were still expected to have a wife and father children). But I digress. 

Edited June 16, 2024 by BeaverFever

[Goddess]

This seems like one reason our military sucks lately:

Putting woke chicks in charge.

Stephanie is an expert in "gender and the armed forces". A made-up specialty.

I bet Hitler could've won if he only had a Stephanie running the show.

This is what will kill a lot of young Canadians on the battlefields.

 

[BeaverFever]

11 hours ago, Goddess said:

This seems like one reason our military sucks lately:

Putting woke chicks in charge.

Stephanie is an expert in "gender and the armed forces". A made-up specialty.

I bet Hitler could've won if he only had a Stephanie running the show.

This is what will kill a lot of young Canadians on the battlefields.

 

From what I can tell she’s just a civilian academic at a university and she’s not “in charge” of anything  or anyone in the military.  She’s going to do anything that affects military activity let alone get anyone killed.  

Edited June 24, 2024 by BeaverFever

[BeaverFever]

Construction finally begins on the new Canadian Surface Combatants today, when it was announced the new class of ships will be called “River Class Guided Missile Destroyers” (with designation DDGH). The name is in honour of the WW2 River Class Destroyers, which were each named after Canadian rivers. The first 3 CSC vessels will be named after WW2 warships HMCS Fraser, Mackenzie and St. Laurent. 
 

What surprised me is that this is the first time I’ve heard of the CSC being referred to as a Destroyer rather than a Frigate especially since it’s based on the British Type 26 Frigate design. While larger than most frigates the CSC is smaller than most destroyers. Apparently they are going with destroyer because of the range of weapons and sensors being packed in, including area air defence, ASW, ASuW and land attack but I wonder if some will find this designation controversial.  So far the design (still not finalized) has a relatively tiny number of missile launch cells compared to most destroyers (24 instead of 96). 
 

 

 

RIVER-CLASS DESTROYER

ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY

https://www.canada.ca/en/navy/corporate/fleet-units/surface/river-class-destroyer.html

 

Edited June 29, 2024 by BeaverFever

[BeaverFever]

Lt.-Gen. Jennie Carignan chosen as first woman to head Canadian Armed Forces

 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has selected Lieutenant-General Jennie Carignan as the next Chief of the Defence Staff, the first woman to head the Canadian Armed Forces, according to a senior government official.

She replaces General Wayne Eyre, who is retiring after 40 years of service; he has held the top military job since 2021.

The announcement is expected Tuesday and Lt.-Gen. Carignan will officially take up her duties during a change-of-command ceremony on July 18 at the Canadian War Museum. 
 

…

 

Lt.-Gen. Carignan is a three-star general with a reputation for excellent service. She has commanded troops in a NATO mission in Iraq, served as chief of staff of army operations and held senior roles at National Defence headquarters. The Prime Minister has spoken often about the need to promote women to important positions in government.

Thomas Juneau, a professor at the University of Ottawa’s graduate school of public and international affairs, said Lt.-Gen. Carignan “has significant and very diverse experience, which is very good.”

She is “known as a doer,” he said. “She is very direct, very blunt and generally viewed as effective.”

…

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-jennie-carignan-first-woman-canadian-armed-forces/#:~:text=Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has,to a senior government official.

Edited June 29, 2024 by BeaverFever

[BeaverFever]

On 6/29/2024 at 10:46 AM, BeaverFever said:

Lt.-Gen. Jennie Carignan chosen as first woman to head Canadian Armed Forces

 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has selected Lieutenant-General Jennie Carignan as the next Chief of the Defence Staff, the first woman to head the Canadian Armed Forces, according to a senior government official.

She replaces General Wayne Eyre, who is retiring after 40 years of service; he has held the top military job since 2021.

The announcement is expected Tuesday and Lt.-Gen. Carignan will officially take up her duties during a change-of-command ceremony on July 18 at the Canadian War Museum. 
 

…

 

Lt.-Gen. Carignan is a three-star general with a reputation for excellent service. She has commanded troops in a NATO mission in Iraq, served as chief of staff of army operations and held senior roles at National Defence headquarters. The Prime Minister has spoken often about the need to promote women to important positions in government.

Thomas Juneau, a professor at the University of Ottawa’s graduate school of public and international affairs, said Lt.-Gen. Carignan “has significant and very diverse experience, which is very good.”

She is “known as a doer,” he said. “She is very direct, very blunt and generally viewed as effective.”

…

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-jennie-carignan-first-woman-canadian-armed-forces/#:~:text=Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has,to a senior government official.

 

[ExFlyer]

 

Are we really that much out of our Military minds????  WTF?????

Canada takes ‘first step’ towards purchase of new submarines

anada is moving ahead with the purchase of new submarines to replace its aging fleet, as it faces mounting pressure at this year’s NATO summit to spend more on the military.

Defence Minister Bill Blair made the announcement Wednesday, as NATO leaders, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, gather in Washington for the annual meeting of the alliance, which is marking its 75^th anniversary.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/canada-takes-first-step-towards-purchase-of-new-submarines/ar-BB1pLgjL?cvid=6513b37e22f44dbcc5f31c8f75c14fe7&ei=14

 

[Venandi]

12 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Are we really that much out of our Military minds????  WTF?????

If ever there was a maritime force multiplier it would be submarines.

Even the possibility (meaning threat) of a submarine presence changes the dynamic for any aggressor, it demands ASW assets be deployed and instills a healthy dose of caution. 

 

Edited July 10, 2024 by Venandi

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Venandi said:

If ever there was a maritime force multiplier it would be submarines

not if you are Canada, since Canada would never launch a torpedo in its own defence

the Americans & British already defend the arctic with their SSN's

Canada is frankly a bystander in this conflict, merely the no man's land in between

[Venandi]

39 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

not if you are Canada,

Especially if you're Canada IMO. Nothing says lurking naval deterrence like a sub does. It may actually be the best value force multiplier there is.

How many times have I heard "Canada doesn't need" In the space of one career. 

- Canada doesn't need heavy lift helicopters... 

- Canada doesn't need tanks... 

- Canada doesn't need shore bombardment, we'll use TASMO in lieu of it...

- Immediately on the heels of that comes Canada doesn't need fighters...

- Canada doesn't need ASW, now there's a perishable skill for ya...

- In the same vein, Canada doesn't need shipborne (HS) ASW helicopters: remember "I will write zero helicopters, Chretien?"

- Canada doesn't need a heavy airlift capability...

- Canada doesn't need special forces...

- Canada doesn't need an airborne capability...

- Canada doesn't need CAS

- Canada doesn't need TAR

- Canada doesn't need A/A refueling

- Canada doesn't need UAV/UAS

- In some circles Canada doesn't need an offensive capability at all, we should concentrate on aid to civil power operations and SAR...

This could be a whole separate thread, and it would be a long one. 

 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2024 by Venandi

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, Venandi said:

Especially if you're Canada IMO.

How many times have I heard "Canada doesn't need" In the space of one career. 

- Canada doesn't need heavy lift helicopters... 

- Canada doesn't need tanks... 

- Canada doesn't need shore bombardment, we'll use TASMO in lieu of it...

- Immediately on the heels of that comes Canada doesn't need fighters...

- Canada doesn't need ASW, now there's a perishable skill for ya...

- In the same vein, Canada doesn't need shipborne (HS) ASW helicopters: remember "I will write zero helicopters, Chretien?"

- Canada doesn't need a heavy airlift capability...

- Canada doesn't need special forces...

- Canada doesn't need an airborne capability...

This could be a whole separate thread, and it would be a long one.

Canada does not actually need any military forces at all

since Canada is simply an American colony

the Americans are the ones preventing Canada from acquiring SSN's

because the Americans deny Canada's claims to the Northwest Passage

so they don't want Canada to have the capability to follow them around up there under the polar ice

if Canada is not able to acquire SSN's, but merely SSK's which are not polar under ice capable ?

that's a waste of money for the Canadian taxpayer

never mind your naive delusions of Canadian grandeur

[Venandi]

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Canada does not actually need any military forces at all

OK, I'll leave that idea with ya... best of luck with it.

Edited July 10, 2024 by Venandi

[BeaverFever]

16 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

 

Are we really that much out of our Military minds????  WTF?????

Canada takes ‘first step’ towards purchase of new submarines

anada is moving ahead with the purchase of new submarines to replace its aging fleet, as it faces mounting pressure at this year’s NATO summit to spend more on the military.

Defence Minister Bill Blair made the announcement Wednesday, as NATO leaders, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, gather in Washington for the annual meeting of the alliance, which is marking its 75^th anniversary.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/canada-takes-first-step-towards-purchase-of-new-submarines/ar-BB1pLgjL?cvid=6513b37e22f44dbcc5f31c8f75c14fe7&ei=14

 

We’re still along way off from any submarines and today’s announcement feels like a non-announcement. . We’ve gone from a pledge to “explore” buying subs to a pledge to “taking the first step towards” buying subs…and a formal Request For Information from potential suppliers is being posted. What’s the difference?  Given the 42-year timeline from the 2008 kickoff of the Canadian Surface Combatant project to the final ship delivery planned for 2050, Im not certain Ill see an operational fleet in my lifetime. 
 

According to chat GPT the AIP sub currently in operation with the longest submerged duration is the German Type 212 which can remain submerged for approximately 3 weeks depending upon various factors then it must snorkel and run on diesel for 3-5 hours to recharge hydrogen fuel cells.  And the approximate travel time from Halifax/Esquimalt to the arctic circle is 8-10 days depending on the departure port. Presumably future models will improve.  (Edit:  time to arctic OCEAN as a opposed to arctic circle is longer, 14-17.5 days)
 

I’m not sure what the appropriate duration of an arctic patrol should be but it seems AIP subs could be used for relatively short patrols with  only couple of weeks spent completely below ice without having to find a place to snorkel, and there would at least 1 snorkel done after arriving in the arctic and one prior to returning home 

Edited July 11, 2024 by BeaverFever

[BeaverFever]

56 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I find it amusing that Australia gets SSNs from the Americans

because America  has no territorial disputes with Australia

yet Canada is kicked out of the Anglo-American club,

because of Canada's claims to the Northwest Passage beyond the twelve mile limit

which Canada doesn't even bother to defend

it is right and good therein, that Canada remains reduced to being a colony,

since that is all that Canada can handle anyways

I’ve not heard the US refuses to sell us SSNs. It’s mostly Canadian lack of interest. We could always try to buy British or French if we really wanted to. 

[Dougie93]

27 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

I’ve not heard the US refuses to sell us SSNs. It’s mostly Canadian lack of interest. We could always try to buy British or French if we really wanted to. 

never mind refusing to sell Canada SSN's

the Americans scuttled Mulroney's plan to buy SSN's from either the British or the French

Canada is not invited into the club,

because again, Canada's claims to the Northwest Passage

are in direct contravention of the American doctrine of Freedom of Navigation

it's not the Russians who dispute Canada's claims in the Arctic, nor even the Chinese

it's the Americans who dispute Canada's claims beyond the Twelve Mile limit

thus Washington is not going to allow Canada the means to enforce those claims

if you had SSN's, that would allow you to track American SSNs in Canadian claimed waters

America declines to grant you that capability,

and America has the pull with the British & French to prevent them from defying America's wishes

neither Britain nor France is going to defy America on behalf of Canada

since Canada is not a player at this level

again, America & Britain are already patrolling the arctic with their SSN's

there's no need for Canada to participate

and nobody cares about Canada's claims in the arctic, since Canada is irrelevant therein

America is happy for Canada to support the approved multilateral programs, like F-35 & P-8

submarines is not something which Washington desires for Canada to buy

since Washington is not going to sell submarines to Canada

Edited July 11, 2024 by Dougie93

[ExFlyer]

13 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

We’re still along way off from any submarines and today’s announcement feels like a non-announcement. . We’ve gone from a pledge to “explore” buying subs to a pledge to “taking the first step towards” buying subs…and a formal Request For Information from potential suppliers is being posted. What’s the difference?  Given the 42-year timeline from the 2008 kickoff of the Canadian Surface Combatant project to the final ship delivery planned for 2050, Im not certain Ill see an operational fleet in my lifetime. 
 

According to chat GPT the AIP sub currently in operation with the longest submerged duration is the German Type 212 which can remain submerged for approximately 3 weeks depending upon various factors then it must snorkel and run on diesel for 3-5 hiurs to recharge batteries.  And the approximate travel time from Halifax/Esquimalt to the arctic circle is 8-10 days. Presumably future models will improve. 
 

I’m not sure what the appropriate duration of an arctic patrol should be but it seems AIP subs could be used for relatively short patrols with  only couple of weeks spent completely below ice without having to find a place to snorkel, and there would at least 1 snorkel done after arriving in the arctic and one prior to returning home 

I think this is a" pure political" announcement primarily to pappease the NATO members that Canada is willing to increase to 2% of GDP on defence.

I personally do not think it will happen at all. All political parties in power make announcements like this when close to election time. The Liberals have little chance of getting elected so this will fall away. I also am quite sure PP will just cancel if it ever came to fruition before the election.

Lastly we cannot man our present fleets, surface and subsurface, so they would just sit dockside like our fleets are now LOL

[BeaverFever]

22 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Lastly we cannot man our present fleets, surface and subsurface, so they would just sit dockside like our fleets are now LOL

Honestly unless we hear big announcements about fixing the personnel shortage, which is an absolute crisis, all the announcements about new procurements are meaningless, as you suggest. Pay raises, signing bonuses, retention bonuses, and greater investment in housing, childcare and other quality of life issues will help address the problem and also count towards the 2% goal. We’ve seen some of this mentioned in the latest defence update but nothing on pay or bonuses. 
 

Supposedly there will be more big announcements today….probably more window dressing. 

[Dougie93]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Supposedly there will be more big announcements today….probably more window dressing. 

the government announcing that Canada is going to acquire 12 SSK's

is just another totally unrealistic idea

to acquire something that the Canadian military doesn't even need

at an expense which the Canadian taxpayer would never tolerate

but which would supposedly be done years in the future after the announcing politicians are long gone

same old, same old

[Dougie93]

17 hours ago, Venandi said:

OK, I'll leave that idea with ya... best of luck with it.

Canada is not defended by its tiny ill equipped military now

Canada's military has never really had the capability to defend Canada

and yet Canada has not been attacked by a military force, since the Fenian Raids of 1866

which Canada did not even defend itself from, rather the US military put a stop to the Fenians

through the entire First & Second World Wars, not even a single attack on Canadian territory

and in the age of the hydrogen bomb;

America could never allow a conventional military attack against North America

thus, logically, Canada could get away with not have any military forces at all

hence why Canadians never vote on issues of National Defence

[Dougie93]

despite being pilloried at the NATO summit

Canada once again declines to meet its NATO obligations

Trudeau says Canada will reach NATO spending target in 2032

Canada is lagging behind, with current spending at around 1.37 per cent, which is set to rise to 1.76 per cent by the end of the decade

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/trudeau-nato-spending-target