959 replies to this topic

[spanky123]

 

One of the Royal Canadian Navy's four beleaguered submarines will remain docked for repairs an extra year after a leak was discovered in a ballast tank that was not properly drained.

 

 

The leak on HMCS Corner Brook is the latest setback for Canada's four submarines, which have spent more time in repairs than at sea since being bought second-hand from Britain in 1998.

 

From the same article. 

 

Lamirande played down the impact on the military and taxpayers, saying the costs are being covered by the contractor and that the delay in getting Corner Brook into the water hasn’t significantly affected the navy’s operations

 

Babcock will pay to repair the hole. What about the tens of millions to cover the costs of the crew for a year?!

[Mike K.]

The crew get paid less when not on active duty at sea, and many remain in active roles at a CFB participating in base, fleet and operational logistics, training, etc.

[AllseeingEye]

You are right, the Aussie's built six of their own subs.

 

The submarines have been the subject of many incidents and technical problems since the design phase, including accusations of foul play and bias during the design selection, improper handling of design changes during construction, major capability deficiencies in the first submarines, and ongoing technical problems throughout the early life of the class. These problems have been compounded by the inability of the RAN to retain sufficient personnel to operate the submarines—by 2008, only three could be manned, and between 2009 and 2012, on average two or fewer were fully operational. The resulting negative press has led to a poor public perception of the Collins class.

 

Which wasn't the point at all but carry on.....

[Victoria Watcher]

yes. but it’s the politics of finally scrapping them that presents the largest challenge.

[spanky123]

The crew get paid less when not on active duty at sea, and many remain in active roles at a CFB participating in base, fleet and operational logistics, training, etc.

 

Sure but if the plan was for them to be attached to a ship and there is no ship then basically they are keeping busy.

[spanky123]

Which wasn't the point at all but carry on.....

 

That is exactly the point. Just because a country builds their own ships doesn't mean that they will have fewer problems. 

 

If you boil it all down, the reality is that almost all, if not all of the major defense contractors are loading up with retired military. These folks know how to work the system (since they were on the other side of the table at one point) and avoid accountability. Since the people they are negotiating with will all be seeking jobs in the future nobody is looking to rock the boat.

[tanker]

And its not just about the sad sack equipment either; between that decades-long sore subject in addition to governments d***ing around with their pensions or (failing) to provide post-combat operations PTSD and other counselling services, its no wonder the CAF has a particularly difficult time in meeting recruiting quotas.

 

In virtually every other major nation on the planet the Defence Minister/Secretary is a major player in those governments, a senior cabinet posting with real influence and jam. Not to mention respect.

 

But in limp-wristed and soft-as-butter Canada? Yeah not so much; basically he is expected to stand front and center before the nation and mumble a few platitudes during the Remembrance Day ceremonies and then fade immediately to black and stay there, far in the background for the rest of the year while the really important portfolios in Canada - namely the Minister for Kissing Quebec's Bum and the Minister for Weeping on Command While Apologizing Profusely for Historic Caucasian Colonial Sins - assume primacy and importance.

 

Not to mention they are first and last in line at the federal budget trough while the poor CAF is forced to survive on whatever meager scraps the Feds deign to occasionally toss in their (very) general direction......like third hand Australian F-18 Super Hornets, themselves the same vintage as the poor old RCAF F-18 fleet which they will join. Or for that matter, rotted and battered and rusted out ex-British submarines.....

 

Every damn procurement program is about politics in this country and often the subject of election campaigns. All the parties are horrible when it comes to this but the Liberals are by far the worse. Remember when they killed the EH-101 and then the Sea Kings stayed in service for another 30 years and then they bought some EH-101s (Cormorants) anyway for SAR? Welp we're seeing the same stupid political interference once again with the CF-18 replacement program. Many pilots will die because of these scum bags. I do mean SCUM BAGS here. I want every liberal voter to know they have blood on their hands because they do not they give a crap about the men and women in the military. They'd probably spit on them in the street if they had actually had balls. 

[AllseeingEye]

That is exactly the point. Just because a country builds their own ships doesn't mean that they will have fewer problems. 

 

If you boil it all down, the reality is that almost all, if not all of the major defense contractors are loading up with retired military. These folks know how to work the system (since they were on the other side of the table at one point) and avoid accountability. Since the people they are negotiating with will all be seeking jobs in the future nobody is looking to rock the boat.

 

Incorrect - the POINT was that Australia unlike this country does not ignore its military and treat them like last week's dirty laundry.

 

Its unfortunate the Collins' boats experienced the issues they did - and they were clearly imperfect. However unlike this country which prefers to cry on command, wring it hands and only spend money on the military when embarrassed and called out publicly on the subject by the US and others (I know for a fact Britain has done so for years, albeit quietly), the Australians don't stare at their shoes pretending the world is a nice happy place full of unicorns, warm milk and magical faeries.....

 

Its pretty damning when the defence "strategy" of a wealthy first world nation - a founding member of NATO - relies primarily on the good graces of the tax paying citizens of its neighbor to shoulder the bulk of its defence because it doesn't have the stomach for it.

 

As a British military study released in the mid 00's noted "Canada - almost uniquely among sovereign nations in the 21st century - has virtually abrogated responsibility for its own national sovereignty" -  Translation: we're too cheap to defend ourselves so we'll happily slink to the back of the room, sit in the cheap seats, and let the Americans do the heavy lifting. 

 

Even worse then our government then turns around and has the temerity to tell veterans returning from military operations which the government sent them on, that there is no money for pensions or counselling but "amazingly" that same government can always shell out billions to bail out its buddies at some Quebec-based corporation whenever the latter cries "wolf". 

[North Shore]

O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";

But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play....

[AllseeingEye]

Every damn procurement program is about politics in this country and often the subject of election campaigns. All the parties are horrible when it comes to this but the Liberals are by far the worse. Remember when they killed the EH-101 and then the Sea Kings stayed in service for another 30 years and then they bought some EH-101s (Cormorants) anyway for SAR? Welp we're seeing the same stupid political interference once again with the CF-18 replacement program. Many pilots will die because of these scum bags. I do mean SCUM BAGS here. I want every liberal voter to know they have blood on their hands because they do not they give a crap about the men and women in the military. They'd probably spit on them in the street if they had actually had balls. 

 

Any defence analyst in this country will tell you the CAF procurement system has been broken for years; the only thing you really need to know about it is that in Canada it only very rarely - if ever - has anything to do with "procuring" the best weapons platform best suited for the battlefield task in support of the troops whose lives may depend on it - and almost always has EVERYTHING to do with seeing how many "in Canada" jobs the government can squeeze out of the winning bid.

 

Last time I looked I believe - officially - the bid breakdown is 20% based on the jobs caveat but unoffiially "wink wink" we know it carries much more weight (politically) than that. It merely looks good on paper. Making other considerations, i.e. actual battlefield utility and usefulness, generally superfluous.

 

Also and lets be honest the average Canadian neither knows nor cares much it at all about Defence ("America will protect us!") so when the government decides its time to swing the budget axe the MoD is the lowest hanging fruit in the room by far and is a way-too-easy target. Heaven forbid any funding earmarked for Quebec or for federal pet projects like multiculturalism or immigration ever get whacked!

Edited by AllseeingEye, 23 December 2020 - 10:18 AM.

[Mattjvd]

Any defence analyst in this country will tell you the CAF procurement system has been broken for years; the only thing you really need to know about it is that in Canada it only very rarely - if ever - has anything to do with "procuring" the best weapons platform best suited for the battlefield task in support of the troops whose lives may depend on it - and almost always has EVERYTHING to do with seeing how many "in Canada" jobs the government can squeeze out of the winning bid.

Last time I looked I believe - officially - the bid breakdown is 20% based on the jobs caveat but unoffiially "wink wink" we know it carries much more weight (politically) than that. It merely looks good on paper. Making other considerations, i.e. actual battlefield utility and usefulness, generally superfluous.

Also and lets be honest the average Canadian neither knows nor cares much it at all about Defence ("America will protect us!") so when the government decides its time to swing the budget axe the MoD is the lowest hanging fruit in the room by far and is a way-too-easy target. Heaven forbid any funding earmarked for Quebec or for federal pet projects like multiculturalism or immigration ever get whacked!

Probably good news for fans of the Gripen, Saab says they'll build them in Quebec

[AllseeingEye]

Probably good news for fans of the Gripen, Saab says they'll build them in Quebec

 

I actually like the Gripen I think it would be great value for the $; its faster and has a slightly longer combat range than the F-18's but its hard to see them going against the F-35 though. Time will tell.

[LJ]

We should have bought the German subs that Norway and Italy use. Germany knows how to build subs.

[todd]

We should have bought the German subs that Norway and Italy use. Germany knows how to build subs.

You know the Germans always make good stuff: https://youtu.be/1Q39yGLPkMY

If the Germans can build it the Canadians can.

Edited by todd, 23 December 2020 - 10:07 PM.

[Mike K.]

We should have bought the German subs that Norway and Italy use. Germany knows how to build subs.

Maybe that’s why their cars stink to high heaven now. They’re putting all their R&D into subs.

[Rob Randall]

You seem to suggest we should have fixed up a used German sub than the British ones.

[todd]

What’s wrong with the British?: https://youtu.be/VjLRTifjpxA

[LJ]

You seem to suggest we should have fixed up a used German sub than the British ones.

Nope, new ones Type 212A

 

https://www.navalnew...patrol-mission/

[todd]

How about a type B1 Japanese submarine like the one that attacked Vancouver Island?

Also might be one a bit closer: https://vancouverisl...dence-1.4748813

Edited by todd, 24 December 2020 - 09:29 PM.

[spanky123]

I am not a fan of Vance but this is getting silly. https://www.cbc.ca/n...riate-1.5898790

 

"Inappropriate behaviour" now includes having a relationship (non-sexual) with someone you out rank? That would mean that 75% of the couples in the CF would be offside! The standard is having a relationship with someone within your direct chain of command and who you have influence over. 

 

My guess is that Vance has made it known that he is considering a political run (like many of his predecessors) and this is a hit job to try and take him out of the race before he has started.