Canadian Defence News

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Yeah, and there's no food. No way to heat your home in the winter. No transportation unless you can steal a horse before someone kills it for food. No communications.  Guns still work, though, so it would be survival of the fittest like Road Warrior, with gangs of killers roaming the land looking to steal whatever food they can get.

nonsense, I'm living surrounded by farms & woods here, there's plenty of food and firewood

I don't think the majority would actually go Road Warrior

humans are far too social for that

of course I would have to train the locals to shoot, move & communicate in their own defence

but they would in turn teach me how to farm

in terms of no communications ?

I grew up without the internet, so I wouldn't be impeded by that

it's really not a Darwnian world where only the strong survive

humans in fact are full of empathy and eager to engage in mutually beneficial relationships

the sociopaths would quickly get sussed out and hung from the nearest tree by local authority

it's actually this dystopian Orwellian techno society which is inciting sociopathy

[I am Groot]

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

nonsense, I'm living surrounded by farms & woods here, there's plenty of food and firewood

And people who live in the cities? They're not surrounded by farms and their homes are not designed to work or be heated without electricity.

 

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I don't think the majority would actually go Road Warrior

humans are far too social for that

You'd be surprised how desperate and violent people would get when starving. Or worse, when their kids are starving.

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

of course I would have to train the locals to shoot, move & communicate in their own defence

but they would in turn teach me how to farm

The locals would have a hard time farming themselves. All their farming equipment has electronic and computer components that no longer work. Which means their farming equipment doesn't work. And if they don't have horses and an old-fashioned plow they're done for. They also rely on big trucks to bring them fertilizer, hay, etc.

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

in terms of no communications ?

I grew up without the internet, so I wouldn't be impeded by that

No way to call for help if there's a fire, or someone has a heart attack or someone is breaking into your house.

 

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

And people who live in the cities? They're not surrounded by farms and their homes are not designed to work or be heated without electricity.

 

You'd be surprised how desperate and violent people would get when starving. Or worse, when their kids are starving.

The locals would have a hard time farming themselves. All their farming equipment has electronic and computer components that no longer work. Which means their farming equipment doesn't work. And if they don't have horses and an old-fashioned plow they're done for. They also rely on big trucks to bring them fertilizer, hay, etc.

No way to call for help if there's a fire, or someone has a heart attack or someone is breaking into your house.

 

humans did just fine for centuries before the industrial / post industrial era

there is no requirement to use machinery, there are plenty of horses out here as well

and this is Mennonite country, so together, I'm quite sure we could figure it out

now people trapped down in Toronto could be for some hard times

but I would surmise that we county folk would simply carry on in defence of our civil society

it's not like the people in Toronto have many guns

we've got all the guns & ammo out here in the countryside

we simply rally to the local armoury and institute a civil defence force

now in terms of facing death by whatever consequence ?

my folk here are Christians;  Jesus saves

people are dying all the time, one of my brothers from the regiment died yesterday, of a massive stroke

again, so long as the terrain is not seeded with strontium-90 ; keep calm & carry on

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

I hope the dumbest person on earth is still smart enough to avoid such a scenario.

well I am actually very pro hydrogen bomb

consider that the H-bomb has likely prevented two to four massive conventional wars in the last 70 years

which would have reduced continents to rubble while killing hundreds of millions

stare into the face of Castle Bravo

the wrath of an Old Testament Lord brought to earth in Technicolour

that being the thing that has prevented the corrupt & inept ruling elites from engaging in another world war

since thanks to Edward Teller & Andrei Sakharov

in the event of an all out interstate war

not just the working & middle classes

but the wealthy elites and their offspring too, would all die together in a firestorm 

thus the two stage fission fusion critical mass weapon, is the ultimate societal leveller

in that the H-bomb, for the first time in human history, has put everyone in the same boat

[Army Guy]

23 hours ago, Venandi said:

I've flown UAVs while deployed, very capable, enjoyed the experience, the technology is cool and there's no doubt that having them saved Canadian lives in Afghanistan. 

Even so, I have this ingrained and lingering "old guy" fear that over reliance on technology creates vulnerabilities and the more you rely on the technology the more you have to account for those vulnerabilities. I've seen the effect of not doing that over and over again.

It even applies to everyday life, cut a fibre optic cable by accident and the fallout can be significant. No internet, no 911, no cell service, no banking, no scanning items at the grocery store, no flights other than self dispatch (and airlines don't do that), no gas, etc etc.

Huge regional impact right down to traffic lights during rush hour.

If the mission computer fails during a critical ASW event now what? Old timers practice this stuff regularly and when they do, young guys on the crew usually roll their eyes. Things like plotting boards and using smoke markers as a visual references sometimes saves the day. If you drop an electrical bus and all you have is INS an immediate switch to maps and lat/ long is easy if you've practiced it. Not so easy if you haven't. 

The scenarios are endless, I could write a book on degraded ops and ruin your whole day on a check ride...  so, while it needs to be practiced, there's no need to be crazy about it. That said, defence in depth is more than just words.

The HUD's a great thing, HUD cripples aren't.

Sometimes a hand on the stick, one on the throttle, feet on the rudder pedals, lining the target up between your legs and putting  grease pencil marks on the canopy wins the day... some here might be surprised at how often it proves true. One thing seems to be a constant though, it's only guys with grey hair that carry grease pencils. 

Watch for them, if nothing else, the reason they do is sure to be entertaining.

 

 

This translates to every element and trade, where to old ways are no longer taught or overlooked as old and uncool to use...Murphy has his own set of laws and rules, if it can go wrong it will go wrong...you always need a plan B...

today's soldiers everyone has a GPS in their pocket or on their wrist, every fighting vehicle has GPS, barley no one carries a map and compass anymore...it is a dying skill, until sh*t happens... 

[Dougie93]

14 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

This translates to every element and trade, where to old ways are no longer taught or overlooked as old and uncool to use...Murphy has his own set of laws and rules, if it can go wrong it will go wrong...you always need a plan B...

today's soldiers everyone has a GPS in their pocket or on their wrist, every fighting vehicle has GPS, barley no one carries a map and compass anymore...it is a dying skill, until sh*t happens... 

but at scale, all war is logistics in the end

so if someone got lost and everything went to shit at the tactical level in the Second World War

that did not effect the outcome of the war

rather it was the logistics to create the Computer which actually won the war

by way of SIGINT & ULTRA

[Army Guy]

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

but at scale, all war is logistics in the end

so if someone got lost and everything went to shit at the tactical level in the Second World War

that did not effect the outcome of the war

rather it was the logistics to create the Computer which actually won the war

by way of SIGINT & ULTRA

For the most part this is true at most you would add some numbers to the stats, x amount to killed or wounded or captured...but lets take the gulf war I, where huge tracks in the desert did not have GPS coverage...and US forces at the brigade level or higher were using map and compass to navigate...one simple mistake would missing the objective by KMs...or running into a much larger force, on the left or right of arcs...the list is endless...and while it might not affect the larger picture such as the war, it could save the lives of just one or dozens ... 

[BeaverFever]

10 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

but Canada is not a full spectrum military participant anymore

Canada declines to maintain a whole range of capabilities

submarines are the most expensive platform there is

Canada simply cannot afford them, considering the priorities and finances

the continent is defended undersea by the American & British SSN's

and since the threat would approach by stealth beneath the polar ice

Canada acquiring new SSK's wouldn't alter the balance of power

Canada has to pick and choose what platforms it is capable of funding

and submarines fall into the optional basket

I mean, obviously, as there are so many other unfunded priorities

starting with Canada having nowhere near enough troops in the ranks

the core of the Canadian military doctrine is to deploy a medium weight expeditionary infantry army

at minimum to give Aid to the Civil Power in the event of State of Emergency

SSK's are way down on the list of priorities

and even if Canada is to maintain SSKs, "up to 12" is nonsensical

since Canada can't even properly maintain the 4 SSK's it has now

in term of the United Kingdom United States Agreement & associated strategic deterrent

the primary role of the submarine force is to detect track & pursue adversary SSBN/SSGN's

while providing freedom of navigation for American & British SSBN's

the SSK simply plays no role in that mission, since it can't follow where SSN's go

so at the strategic level, Canada gets very little bang for its buck, spending on SSK's

and as I say, if all Canada plans to do is conduct ISR from undersea

that could be done exponentially more affordably using UUV from a mother ship, such as AOPS

the one thing the AOPS has going for it is the multimission bay at the rear

so you put two UUVs there, then lower them into the water with the crane

employing the AOPS as a USV/UUV mothership, plus UAV's from the hangar & flight deck

suddenly makes the AOPS vastly more useful therein

even in terms of ASW combat, the UUV can do things that a submarine cannot

since it is expendable downrange, it can pound the sea with Low Frequency Active SONAR

while the UAV's drop sonobuoys from above

this actually presents enemy nuclear submarines with a serious problem which SSK's could not

the drones go out to persistently find & fix the enemy submarines

then you launch P-8/CH-148 to engage those contacts

by these means, even AOPS becomes a formidable sub hunting force multiplier

through what is called Manned Unmanned Teaming ( MUM-T )

in this age of 21st century drone warfare, even a "lightly armed" platform like AOPS

could pack a tremendous punch, at a very affordable price

drone mothership giving the AOPS a very signifant role in the Task Group alongside the FFG/DDG

in this day & age, you can even overcome AOPS' lack of firepower

simply by box mounting some canister launched Loitering Munitions on it

those UAS actually being the most dangerous weapons in the battle space already

with Loitering Munitions. AOPS could be precision engaging surface targets hundreds of klicks away

to wit, all war is drone war, not in the future, right now ; so get with the program

Ok you’re starting to win me over 

[BeaverFever]

9 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Canada actually has unique opportunity right now

since Canada has not invested heavily in First Cold War weapon systems designed for war in the 1980's

so Canada could in fact go all in on 21st century drone warfare

which would actually leapfrog Canada ahead of most other NATO countries

which are having to retool for drone war, realizing that most of their kit is actually obsolete

and since drones are not industrial, Canada could easily produce them in droves, with 3D printing

the last thing Canada should be doing is buying SSKs

which is basically slightly upgraded 1960's tech

the future of undersea warfare is quite obviously going to be unmanned

rather than one big submarine with sailors onboard

it's going to be dozens of robot submarines

saturating the battle space, completely expendable downraange

this is called the Commodification of Warfare ; the weapons platform is a commodity not a ship

in that drones are basically like ammo, which guides itself to the target

totally agnostic as to the launching platforms

since you can launch drones from anything, fishing vessels to container ships

already there are UUV drones in development which combine the undersea sensor to shooter loop

a low cost unmanned submarine which goes out and finds the enemy manned submarine

then simply turns itself into a torpedo by launching a suicide attack therein

with the computing power available now, a drone that clever is comparatively dirt cheap

it doesn't have to be remote controlled

since you can program the drone to recognize the acoustic signature of the targets

then the AI takes care of the rest from there, based on your preset ROE's

furthermore, these drones can follow the targets under the polar ice

at a tiny fraction of the cost of an SSN

you could even send a drone submarine to follow a Russian nuclear submarine all the way home

across the Arctic Sea, through the Barents,  and into the Russian bases on the Kola Peninsula

then have it launch an attack from right there, inside their perimeter

this is not science fiction, this sort of computer is commercial off the shelf technology now

there's more than enough computing power in an iPhone to carry out such a mission autonomously

Ironically this will probably make warfare more likely. Russia would never shoot down a manned US aircraft but they will take down US unmanned drones and in fact already have. 

[herbie]

5 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

the real threat against that is not EMP

No, EMP is the evolution of MAD and the neutron bomb. On e Czar bomb at 200 klicks altitude might cripple a whole hemisphere. The buildings are still there, the people are still there but they're cripplesd and demoralized back to the Stone Age. Or at least real world Steam Punk.
Our reliance on technology has become our weakest point. Like I''ve said many times, relying on $1M smart bombs to take out $20K Toyota trucks. Factories that can't make weapons without Chinese chips. One of the workl's most touted armies hasn't conquered a country the size of small ranch in almost a year.
Yet we can't stop rattling sabres and poking each other with sticks.

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

No, EMP is the evolution of MAD and the neutron bomb. On e Czar bomb at 200 klicks altitude might cripple a whole hemisphere. The buildings are still there, the people are still there but they're cripplesd and demoralized back to the Stone Age. Or at least real world Steam Punk.

well EMP is more of a tactic than a new type of weapon

a high yield burst in the ionosphere to rain charged particles down

but it's actually highly unpredictable

the charged particles do not rain down in an even distribution

some places get hit, some don't

you're not really going to fry every single electronic device in the CONUS

furthermore you're going to hit other countries at random

to include even having it backfire to rain back down on the attacker

so it's not a simple solution like point and click

and it's an existentially perilous gambit to launch such an attack

a neutron bomb is more of a modification

in that you remove the uranium tamper from an hydrogen bomb to make a pure fusion warhead

although the uranium tamper is a massive fissile booster

so without that tamper,  the yield of the hydrogen bomb then drops down to around only 1kt

so it's actually a very small bomb, hence you would have to use thousands of them to wipe the CONUS out

the neutron bomb was actually intended to be used as a battlefield tac nuke

hence why it was considered so destabilizing to the central front of the Cold War in Europe

I would suggest that the most destabilizing nuclear weapon in play right now

is the American W76-2 loaded on the UGM-92 Trident II SLBM

because that is a dedicated counterforce weapon

the W76 dialed down to only about 10Kt launched on a depressed trajectory SLBM

the only purpose for that weapon being to fight a theatre thermonuclear war

it's not for deterrence, it's designed to be used, and to be used in a preemptive strike

combined with comprehensive ballistic missile defense in the face of retaliation

this is the sort of thing which really sets the Russians off; why they abandoned the INF treaty

reason being that the Russians don't have an effective early warning system against it

hence they are in fact quite vulnerable to a preemptive first strike counterforce in theatre

in theory, America could surge up to 10 SSBN's to sea with 240 SLBMs, 2400 tactical warheads

that alone could knock out the bulk of the Russian strategic deterrent in a first strike

because these warheads are far more accurate from submarines  now than they used to be

Russia would not see it coming, not from submarines right off their coasts

you start adding stealth bombers like B-21 and F-35 loaded with B61-12 tactical bombs

and BMD shooting down what missiles the Russians did get off

suddenly the Russians don't have enough nukes to ensure that they could  inflict "unacceptable losses"

that frankly scares the shit out of the paranoid Kremlin

this is really why they are fighting the war in Ukraine

because that really is point blank to Moscow

if America could launch from Ukraine, they could decapitate the Kremlin in a counterforce

I don't think America plans to do this, but it's not about plans, it's all about capability

the Russians are becoming increasingly paranoid, simply because they can't keep up anymore

it's becoming an asymmetrical confrontation with the Russians at an ever increasing disadvantage

the Russians are projecting twenty to thirty years into the future and realizing that by then

America will be totally dominant, able to fight and win a nuclear war against them

so they are trying to stave that off by whatever means are available to them in the now

ultimately I surmise that they hope to force a negotiation

wherein America would agree to stop developing this overwhelming counterforce capability

Edited July 15, 2024 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

12 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Ironically this will probably make warfare more likely.

that is indeed the paradox

but the drone arms race is already in full swing, and it's only go to go exponential from here

so Canada might as well just lean into it

because Canada doesn't do big platforms well, Canada struggles to build frigates and whatnot

but the commodification of warfare, wherein everything is a comparatively small & affordable drone

that is something that Canada could actually produce in Canada at scale

Canada doesn't build the Space Shuttle, Canada builds the CANADARM

that's the sort of niche role which Canada used to play, and quite effectively

side benefit is that Canada could also get to its 2% NATO obligation while buying Canadian

you spend half the increase on the troops, increasing pay, benefits, housing etc

that solves your manpower problem, assuming recruitment gets sorted out some how

then you spend the other half on acquiring bleeding edge drone tech in quantity

and if you do buy AIP SSK's offshore from South Korea or whomever

you don't buy 12, you buy 4

and you have them built with a dock on the back

so they become the covert underwater drone mother ships

that way you can project power under the ice without SSN's

you simply go as far north as you can with the SSK, then launch the UUV's to go under the ice

bearing in mind, again, that the UUV does not have to remain stealthy '

it doesn't have to listen for the Russian nuclear submarines up there

since you won't hear them with all the noise of the ice cracking

instead, the UUV can blast away with active Sonar, even synthetic aperture SONAR

until is "sees" the Russian submarine by their shape 

then it just follows the Russian submarine around, giving away its location

in the event of war, you load the UUV with a warhead, and it goes into  hunter killer mode

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-navys-future-mothership-submarines-controlling-drones-attack-48952

Edited July 15, 2024 by Dougie93

[BeaverFever]

17 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

that is indeed the paradox

but the drone arms race is already in full swing, and it's only go to go exponential from here

so Canada might as well just lean into it

because Canada doesn't do big platforms well, Canada struggles to build frigates and whatnot

but the commodification of warfare, wherein everything is a comparatively small & affordable drone

that is something that Canada could actually produce in Canada at scale

Canada doesn't build the Space Shuttle, Canada builds the CANADARM

that's the sort of niche role which Canada used to play, and quite effectively

side benefit is that Canada could also get to its 2% NATO obligation while buying Canadian

you spend half the increase on the troops, increasing pay, benefits, housing etc

that solves your manpower problem, assuming recruitment gets sorted out some how

then you spend the other half on acquiring bleeding edge drone tech in quantity

and if you do buy AIP SSK's offshore from South Korea or whomever

you don't buy 12, you buy 4

and you have them built with a dock on the back

so they become the covert underwater drone mother ships

that way you can project power under the ice without SSN's

you simply go as far north as you can with the SSK, then launch the UUV's to go under the ice

bearing in mind, again, that the UUV does not have to remain stealthy '

it doesn't have to listen for the Russian nuclear submarines up there

since you won't hear them with all the noise of the ice cracking

instead, the UUV can blast away with active Sonar, even synthetic aperture SONAR

until is "sees" the Russian submarine by their shape 

then it just follows the Russian submarine around, giving away its location

in the event of war, you load the UUV with a warhead, and it goes into  hunter killer mode

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-navys-future-mothership-submarines-controlling-drones-attack-48952

I wonder how well man-in-the-loop / remote operation would work through polar ice. I doubt Canada would ever let AI independently decide to sink another vessel. 

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

I wonder how well man-in-the-loop / remote operation would work through polar ice. I doubt Canada would ever let AI independently decide to sink another vessel. 

depends how desperate the situation

considering the imperative to prevent a launch of SLBM against North America

to wit, in the face of thermonuclear weapons, the gloves come off

[Dougie93]

14 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

I wonder how well man-in-the-loop / remote operation would work through polar ice

on this particularly

it won't be long before AI is replacing White Collar workers in most jobs

the binary choices required to replace military commanders are significantly less complex

it's really just a very long ranged homing torpedo which can execute its own shoot / no shoot decision making

based on the same parameters any submarine captain would

no different than a self driving car, except with a warhead attached

 

[BeaverFever]

43 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

on this particularly

it won't be long before AI is replacing White Collar workers in most jobs

the binary choices required to replace military commanders are significantly less complex

it's really just a very long ranged homing torpedo which can execute its own shoot / no shoot decision making

based on the same parameters any submarine captain would

no different than a self driving car, except with a warhead attached

 

But in reality during peacetime no submarine captain would have unlimited authority to fire on any Submarine and trigger a war according to his own judgment. In other peacetime drone circumstances we see the Authority to fire often comes from the highest levels of command. 

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

But in reality during peacetime no submarine captain would have unlimited authority to fire on any Submarine and trigger a war according to his own judgment. In other peacetime drone circumstances we see the Authority to fire often comes from the highest levels of command. 

nothing says the drone can't find some thin ice, then stick its satellite communications antenna above the surface

to call the way back to Ottawa for instructions

Drones in fact give the civilian authority exponentially more control of the situation than they've ever had

[BeaverFever]

15 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

nothing says the drone can't find some thin ice, then stick its satellite communications antenna above the surface

to call the way back to Ottawa for instructions

Drones in fact give the civilian authority exponentially more control of the situation than they've ever had

Right but that’s just scheduled reporting not real time 2 way remote piloting with a human pulling the trigger. 

[Dougie93]

Just now, BeaverFever said:

Right but that’s just scheduled reporting not real time 2 way remote piloting with a human pulling the trigger. 

again, you are thinking of an obsolete paradigm

when the algorithms were simplistic

these days, we are talking about AI

which can easily determine situationally if and when it needs to call for instructions from higher

[BeaverFever]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

again, you are thinking of an obsolete paradigm

when the algorithms were simplistic

these days, we are talking about AI

which can easily determine situationally if and when it needs to call for instructions from higher

But AI will never be a substitute for human judgment it will start a world war every time. I recently read about a us military exercise where several ai systems including chat gpt were wargamed and the majority launched nukes as a first strike. An AI would never be able to contemplate the myriad diverse, fluid and subjective considerations that go into make these kinds of decisions and AI can’t be held accountable for them anyway. Heck AI also gets confused and makes mistakes I have caught chatgpt telling me incorrect info before 

[ExFlyer]

On 7/14/2024 at 7:22 PM, Army Guy said:

This translates to every element and trade, where to old ways are no longer taught or overlooked as old and uncool to use...Murphy has his own set of laws and rules, if it can go wrong it will go wrong...you always need a plan B...

today's soldiers everyone has a GPS in their pocket or on their wrist, every fighting vehicle has GPS, barley no one carries a map and compass anymore...it is a dying skill, until sh*t happens... 

Or the Americans turn GPS off. (or block signal)

[BeaverFever]

On 7/14/2024 at 7:22 PM, Army Guy said:

.today's soldiers everyone has a GPS in their pocket or on their wrist, every fighting vehicle has GPS, barley no one carries a map and compass anymore...it is a dying skill, until sh*t happens... 

….not to mention GPS jamming and spoofing is now a common practice in Ukraine and other conflicts which means the ability to operate in “GPS Denied” environment is now a critical core skill that all personnel need to have. 

Edited July 18, 2024 by BeaverFever

[BeaverFever]

Ottawa looking at retiring some older military equipment — including the Snowbird jets

Defence Minister Bill Blair insists no decisions have been made

Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: Jul 17, 2024 3:00 PM EDT | Last Updated: July 17

The Canadian Air Force Snowbirds fly over Great Falls, Mont., on Friday, June 1, 2007. (Rion Sanders/Associated Press)

The Department of National Defence is actively considering whether to retire some older ships, planes and other items of equipment that have become difficult and costly to maintain — including the aircraft belonging to the iconic Snowbird demonstration squadron.

In an interview with CBC News, Defence Minister Bill Blair insisted no decisions have been made and he's waiting on advice from military leaders.

Blair said the 1960s-vintage CT-114 Tutor jets used by the Snowbirds have been in service too long. He said he's asked the commander of the air force whether the planes — which were given a life extension to 2025 and are now going through an additional upgrade — have finally "aged out."

Defence Minister Bill Blair: 'I want to maintain the Snowbirds. I just want to get them a better plane.' (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)

"The reality is the Tutor plane is well past its utility," Blair said. "There are even some safety issues that are deeply concerning to me and I've received assurances that through this flight season ... they can manage those safely, but it continues to persist as a concern."

Blair did not elaborate on those safety issues. The aircraft have crashed a number of times. Capt. Jennifer Casey, an air force public affairs officer, died on May 17, 2020 when the Snowbird she was in crashed after takeoff near Kamloops, B.C.

Gov. Gen. Julie Payette, followed by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, attends the homecoming ceremony for RCAF Capt. Jennifer Casey at Halifax Stanfield International Airport in Enfield, N.S. on Sunday, May 24, 2020. Casey, a military public affairs officer and a Halifax native, was killed in the crash of a Snowbirds Tutor jet in a residential area of Kamloops, B.C.(Andrew Vaughan/The Canadian Press)

The air force recently installed new avionics the defence department says can keep the demonstration jets flying until perhaps 2030 — almost 70 years after they were purchased.

Defence sources say the navy's 1990s vintage minesweepers, known as maritime coastal defence vessels (MCDVs), could also be on the chopping block.

"There's a number of our ships that have ... they're becoming increasingly expensive, almost prohibitively expensive to maintain and ... even to staff," Blair said, adding he's awaiting a recommendation from the commander of the navy.

Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Wayne Eyre talks to his troops at Garrison Petawawa in Petawawa, Ont. on Thursday, Oct. 19, 2023. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)

The country's soon-to-retire top military commander, Gen. Wayne Eyre, said the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) is examining a list of older capabilities that should be replaced, the time it might take to replace them and whether it makes sense to take that equipment out of service in the meantime.

Eyre would not discuss details, saying the decision ultimately will be up to the minister and his successor, Lt.-Gen. (soon to be General) Jennie Carignan. 

The navy has made a case publicly for replacing its four Victoria-class submarines and the Liberal government announced during the recent NATO Summit in Washington that it would proceed with the program.

The defence department was asked a series of questions about ships, planes and other pieces of equipment that are near the end of their service lives. It did not respond.

Eyre said the tough choices are not so much about budgets as they are about the age and survivability of the equipment.

"As a capability ages out, there's a declining pool of spare parts to be able to keep it going," he said. "Opening up assembly lines for some of these spare parts — if they're very small, if it's a fleet that is very small worldwide — may not make a lot of sense."

The naval tugboat Glenivis assists as HMCS St. John's heads to the Mediterranean in Halifax on Monday, Jan. 9, 2017. The recent budget set aside money to maintain Halifax-class frigates like the St. John's. (Andrew Vaughan/Canadian Press)

The recent federal budget set aside funding to maintain older warships, such as the navy's Halifax-class frigates. But Eyre said not all of the military's needs were covered and "there's a delta" between the upkeep required and the amount of cash available.

The aging-out crisis now gripping the military has been decades in the making and is the product of successive governments "not wanting to make the hard choices," said Christian Leuprecht, a professor at the Royal Military College of Canada.

He said the military and the government will have to take care in choosing which items of equipment to decommission and when.

"Our allies are seeing that Canada is effectively reducing capabilities because it simply doesn't have the money, the political will or the human resources to generate new capabilities — or to even sustain the capabilities Canada currently has," said Leuprecht. He added he believes the staffing crisis within the military is making the situation worse by leaving the CAF with fewer technicians to keep older aircraft and ships running.

There may be no better example of the federal government's reluctance to replace military equipment on a timely basis than the Snowbirds' Tutor jets, which were first ordered by the military in 1961.

Maj. Robert Mitchell, right, lead pilot of the Canadian Forces Snowbirds, and Sgt. Marlene Shillingford, crew chief, perform a preflight inspection on their jet before takeoff from Great Falls International Airport on June 1, 2007 in Great Falls, Mont.(Rion Sanders/Associated Press)

The jets began their demonstration career in 1967. They adopted the name Snowbirds in 1971 and were formally designated as the airshow team in 1975.

The Tutors also served for decades as the air force's principal jet trainer before being retired from that task in the early 2000s. Of the 191 originally ordered, roughly 26 are thought to be in the air force inventory or in storage.

In 2003, the air force was urged in no uncertain terms to quickly replace the Tutors, which were considered well-maintained but ancient.

A study by the defence department's director of major service delivery procurement warned at the time that the aircraft's life expectancy would run to 2010 but could be extended for another decade if absolutely necessary.

Keeping the Tutor poses 'significant' risks, report warned

"With each passing year, the technical, safety and financial risk associated with extending the Tutor into its fifth decade and beyond will escalate," said the review, written in August 2003. "These risks are significant, however they are not easily quantified."

The Snowbirds kept flying, however.

A DND report from the fall of 2014 cleared the fleet as "technically airworthy" but noted "significant concerns, including some caused by financial restraints."

That same evaluation said the Tutors could have their lives extended to 2025.

"I want to maintain the Snowbirds. I just want to get them a better plane," said Blair, adding that he's asked the commander of the air force about the feasibility of using "existing fighter jets" to maintain an aerial demonstration team, as other allies do.

"I think that's something that I want to explore."

If Canada's NORAD and NATO commitments make that option impossible, he said, he wants to begin the search for a replacement for the Tutor as soon as possible.

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/snowbirds-tutor-jets-canadian-armed-forces-1.7266310

[BeaverFever]

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

Ottawa looking at retiring some older military equipment — including the Snowbird jets

Defence Minister Bill Blair insists no decisions have been made

Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: Jul 17, 2024 3:00 PM EDT | Last Updated: July 17

The Canadian Air Force Snowbirds fly over Great Falls, Mont., on Friday, June 1, 2007. (Rion Sanders/Associated Press)

The Department of National Defence is actively considering whether to retire some older ships, planes and other items of equipment that have become difficult and costly to maintain — including the aircraft belonging to the iconic Snowbird demonstration squadron.

In an interview with CBC News, Defence Minister Bill Blair insisted no decisions have been made and he's waiting on advice from military leaders.

Blair said the 1960s-vintage CT-114 Tutor jets used by the Snowbirds have been in service too long. He said he's asked the commander of the air force whether the planes — which were given a life extension to 2025 and are now going through an additional upgrade — have finally "aged out."

Defence Minister Bill Blair: 'I want to maintain the Snowbirds. I just want to get them a better plane.' (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)

"The reality is the Tutor plane is well past its utility," Blair said. "There are even some safety issues that are deeply concerning to me and I've received assurances that through this flight season ... they can manage those safely, but it continues to persist as a concern."

Blair did not elaborate on those safety issues. The aircraft have crashed a number of times. Capt. Jennifer Casey, an air force public affairs officer, died on May 17, 2020 when the Snowbird she was in crashed after takeoff near Kamloops, B.C.

Gov. Gen. Julie Payette, followed by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, attends the homecoming ceremony for RCAF Capt. Jennifer Casey at Halifax Stanfield International Airport in Enfield, N.S. on Sunday, May 24, 2020. Casey, a military public affairs officer and a Halifax native, was killed in the crash of a Snowbirds Tutor jet in a residential area of Kamloops, B.C.(Andrew Vaughan/The Canadian Press)

The air force recently installed new avionics the defence department says can keep the demonstration jets flying until perhaps 2030 — almost 70 years after they were purchased.

Defence sources say the navy's 1990s vintage minesweepers, known as maritime coastal defence vessels (MCDVs), could also be on the chopping block.

"There's a number of our ships that have ... they're becoming increasingly expensive, almost prohibitively expensive to maintain and ... even to staff," Blair said, adding he's awaiting a recommendation from the commander of the navy.

Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Wayne Eyre talks to his troops at Garrison Petawawa in Petawawa, Ont. on Thursday, Oct. 19, 2023. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)

The country's soon-to-retire top military commander, Gen. Wayne Eyre, said the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) is examining a list of older capabilities that should be replaced, the time it might take to replace them and whether it makes sense to take that equipment out of service in the meantime.

Eyre would not discuss details, saying the decision ultimately will be up to the minister and his successor, Lt.-Gen. (soon to be General) Jennie Carignan. 

The navy has made a case publicly for replacing its four Victoria-class submarines and the Liberal government announced during the recent NATO Summit in Washington that it would proceed with the program.

The defence department was asked a series of questions about ships, planes and other pieces of equipment that are near the end of their service lives. It did not respond.

Eyre said the tough choices are not so much about budgets as they are about the age and survivability of the equipment.

"As a capability ages out, there's a declining pool of spare parts to be able to keep it going," he said. "Opening up assembly lines for some of these spare parts — if they're very small, if it's a fleet that is very small worldwide — may not make a lot of sense."

The naval tugboat Glenivis assists as HMCS St. John's heads to the Mediterranean in Halifax on Monday, Jan. 9, 2017. The recent budget set aside money to maintain Halifax-class frigates like the St. John's. (Andrew Vaughan/Canadian Press)

The recent federal budget set aside funding to maintain older warships, such as the navy's Halifax-class frigates. But Eyre said not all of the military's needs were covered and "there's a delta" between the upkeep required and the amount of cash available.

The aging-out crisis now gripping the military has been decades in the making and is the product of successive governments "not wanting to make the hard choices," said Christian Leuprecht, a professor at the Royal Military College of Canada.

He said the military and the government will have to take care in choosing which items of equipment to decommission and when.

"Our allies are seeing that Canada is effectively reducing capabilities because it simply doesn't have the money, the political will or the human resources to generate new capabilities — or to even sustain the capabilities Canada currently has," said Leuprecht. He added he believes the staffing crisis within the military is making the situation worse by leaving the CAF with fewer technicians to keep older aircraft and ships running.

There may be no better example of the federal government's reluctance to replace military equipment on a timely basis than the Snowbirds' Tutor jets, which were first ordered by the military in 1961.

Maj. Robert Mitchell, right, lead pilot of the Canadian Forces Snowbirds, and Sgt. Marlene Shillingford, crew chief, perform a preflight inspection on their jet before takeoff from Great Falls International Airport on June 1, 2007 in Great Falls, Mont.(Rion Sanders/Associated Press)

The jets began their demonstration career in 1967. They adopted the name Snowbirds in 1971 and were formally designated as the airshow team in 1975.

The Tutors also served for decades as the air force's principal jet trainer before being retired from that task in the early 2000s. Of the 191 originally ordered, roughly 26 are thought to be in the air force inventory or in storage.

In 2003, the air force was urged in no uncertain terms to quickly replace the Tutors, which were considered well-maintained but ancient.

A study by the defence department's director of major service delivery procurement warned at the time that the aircraft's life expectancy would run to 2010 but could be extended for another decade if absolutely necessary.

Keeping the Tutor poses 'significant' risks, report warned

"With each passing year, the technical, safety and financial risk associated with extending the Tutor into its fifth decade and beyond will escalate," said the review, written in August 2003. "These risks are significant, however they are not easily quantified."

The Snowbirds kept flying, however.

A DND report from the fall of 2014 cleared the fleet as "technically airworthy" but noted "significant concerns, including some caused by financial restraints."

That same evaluation said the Tutors could have their lives extended to 2025.

"I want to maintain the Snowbirds. I just want to get them a better plane," said Blair, adding that he's asked the commander of the air force about the feasibility of using "existing fighter jets" to maintain an aerial demonstration team, as other allies do.

"I think that's something that I want to explore."

If Canada's NORAD and NATO commitments make that option impossible, he said, he wants to begin the search for a replacement for the Tutor as soon as possible.

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/snowbirds-tutor-jets-canadian-armed-forces-1.7266310

I have long thought that it’s time for the Snowbirds to go. We can’t spare the resources for a flight demo team when there’s a critical shortage of pilots and maintenance personnel and damn well everything else. Watching 60-yr old subsonic training aircraft isn’t all that exciting anyway, I find them kind of boring compared to Blue Angels or Thunderbirds in their F/A-18s and F-16s.
 

They should have been cancelled long ago but the government kept them active to avoid controversy from the very same Canadian public who has been generally uninterested in military spending.  Keeping the snowbirds this long was about maintaining outward appearances while gutting the CAF so axing the snowbirds would be an overdue wakeup call for the public. 
 

As for the MCDVs, don’t get me started on those detestable pieces of crap that have been crap since they were first purchased. Feels like we would need something to replace them but we probably can’t spare the crews in the near future and our procurement is already overwhelmed and FUBAR’d to the extreme especially shipbuilding. I don’t know how we could possibly add this to the list in the foreseeable future. 

Edited July 18, 2024 by BeaverFever

[Dougie93]

On 7/18/2024 at 10:50 AM, BeaverFever said:

I have long thought that it’s time for the Snowbirds to go. We can’t spare the resources for a flight demo team when there’s a critical shortage of pilots and maintenance personnel and damn well everything else. Watching 60-yr old subsonic training aircraft isn’t all that exciting anyway, I find them kind of boring compared to Blue Angels or Thunderbirds in their F/A-18s and F-16s.
 

They should have been cancelled long ago but the government kept them active to avoid controversy from the very same Canadian public who has been generally uninterested in military spending.  Keeping the snowbirds this long was about maintaining outward appearances while gutting the CAF so axing the snowbirds would be an overdue wakeup call for the public.

considering the untold billions that Canada wastes on completely useless boondoggles

I don't see what difference it would make

if 431 "Iroquois" Aerobatic Demonstration Squadron "The Snowbirds"

was equipped with 9 CF-18's

The hatiten ronteriios (War­riors of the air)