959 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

Well, it happens all the time, it's rife with adultery. They are stuck on boats for months at a time, they have "boat husbands," "boat wives," etc. Where it becomes a problem is when a relationship develops between a direct subordinate and a superior. Relationships ought also be disclosed to superiors.

[sebberry]

Well, it happens all the time, it's rife with adultery. They are stuck on boats for months at a time, they have "boat husbands," "boat wives," etc. Where it becomes a problem is when a relationship develops between a direct subordinate and a superior. Relationships ought also be disclosed to superiors.

 

To our wives and our girlfriends, may the two never meet... or something like that.

[spanky123]

Well, it happens all the time, it's rife with adultery. They are stuck on boats for months at a time, they have "boat husbands," "boat wives," etc. Where it becomes a problem is when a relationship develops between a direct subordinate and a superior. Relationships ought also be disclosed to superiors.

 

Not saying it doesn't happen, just asking if it was still a charge. Might have impact on what is going on in Ottawa.

[Mike K.]

It's a similar story with police, fire, ambulance and other high stress jobs where you develop relationships with people based on the sharing of common experiences and difficult situations. 

[AllseeingEye]

^ ASE maybe you know this. At one point adultery was consider conduct unbecoming for an officer. Is that still the case?

 

Offhand I don't Spanky - I do know in recent years the Defence Act has been substantially updated with regard to offences or inferred offences of a sexual nature;  the Defence Administrative Orders and Directives (DAOD's) does not speak directly to adultery so the answer is unclear to me:

 

https://www.canada.c...ernization.html

 

On another CAF topic since we like to slag the department for its horrific procurement practices and policies credit where credit is due; saw a couple of pics of the newly-minted RCN patrol vessel Harry DeWolf on patrol in the Arctic. They are really quite spectacular - 

Attached Images

• 
• 

[North Shore]

To our wives and our girlfriends, may the two never meet... or something like that.

I always thought it was: "To dread diseases, and bloody wars!"

[spanky123]

I always thought it was: "To dread diseases, and bloody wars!"

 

Different toast for each day of the week. Original Saturday toast was to "wives and sweethearts" but that has been changed to " our families".

 

Thursday toast is to a "bloody war or sickly season" on the basis that that is a quick way to get promoted!

[Mattjvd]

Offhand I don't Spanky - I do know in recent years the Defence Act has been substantially updated with regard to offences or inferred offences of a sexual nature; the Defence Administrative Orders and Directives (DAOD's) does not speak directly to adultery so the answer is unclear to me:

https://www.canada.c...ernization.html

On another CAF topic since we like to slag the department for its horrific procurement practices and policies credit where credit is due; saw a couple of pics of the newly-minted RCN patrol vessel Harry DeWolf on patrol in the Arctic. They are really quite spectacular -

Great pictures, thanks for sharing those.

[AllseeingEye]

Great pictures, thanks for sharing those.

 

Yer welcome; published and distributed by the MoD. At least we sent a naval ship up there with weapons capability, minimal as it may be (BAE Bushmaster and a couple of Browning machine gun emplacements I believe).

 

I really have no idea to this day why especially certain classes of even the new CCG ships - including the yet to be built heavy polar icebreaker John Diefenbaker - remain or are intended to be unarmed especially since some of them will be deployed for Arctic patrols.

 

In the event of an "incident" as China and Russia move to assert their naval presence in the north I suppose the CG ships are expected to yell over the radio-comm system as loudly as they can, then scoot out of the area ASAP. Literally a couple of the CG offshore patrol ships have machine guns but that capability does not extend even to that entire class, of which we have about 8 ships if memory serves. Again I don't know why that is.

[Rob Randall]

I can see the value of light weapons when you're up against drug runners and pirates but if your adversary is China or Russia there is a strategic value in not being armed believe it or not. It's hard to accuse an unarmed ship of being the aggressor in a confrontation.

[Mattjvd]

I can see the value of light weapons when you're up against drug runners and pirates but if your adversary is China or Russia there is a strategic value in not being armed believe it or not. It's hard to accuse an unarmed ship of being the aggressor in a confrontation.

That's a decent point. It would be nice if the Harry Dewolf class had missile defence weapon though. Just to give the ship a chance to survive if someone else decides to be the agressor.

[AllseeingEye]

Yet more fuel for the fire...what an unholy mess; only in Canada with its convoluted defence procurement "requirements" could a ship yard with a SEVEN BILLION $ contract be seen to lose money, at least initially.

 

And the timeline for final replacement of our poor aging frigates is a national disgrace.....2046 for the last of only 15 ships to *finally* hit salt water - over a generation after initially ordered? FFS wet-behind-the-ears rookie seamen on our ships today will be collecting their pension checks by the time the last of the "new" ships arrive. That is beyond unacceptable IMO.

 

Back in the heyday of the Red Navy - and yes I know very well we're talking about a centralized Soviet system that cared less about sealed bids or frankly the cost in rubles etc., and which put 1000x more emphasis on such things than wet noodle Canadian Liberal governments - there was insofar as I am aware at least one documented case study when they were in hot competition with the US Navy, to consider/plan for/design, build and actually PUT INTO production for front line operational duty - simultaneously - an entire class each of new frigates and destroyers in as little as 6-8 years - and we're not talking about some itty-bitty piddly teeny weeny number like 15 vessels either. Disgraceful.

 

https://www.msn.com/...1ac9?ocid=ientp

[Mike K.]

We really should be contracting this to professionals in other NATO nations.

Look at Bombardier. Propped up for generations by Quebec-centric federal governments, and it remains a hot mess. The Learjet was just canceled, which has been a Canadian symbol of aviation for ever. Man, did we ever play our cards right as taxpayers on that one.

[VANRIDERFAN]

^ ASE maybe you know this. At one point adultery was consider conduct unbecoming for an officer. Is that still the case?

The Americans still have an adultery clause in their Code of Service Discipline. There is nothing like that in our National Defence Act.

[VANRIDERFAN]

To our wives and our girlfriends, may the two never meet... or something like that.

Saturday's Toast of the Day

[VANRIDERFAN]

I always thought it was: "To dread diseases, and bloody wars!"

Thursday's Toast - A Bloody War or Sickly Season!

Friday's Toast - A Willing Foe and Sea Room!

[VANRIDERFAN]

The US Navy is selling a fleet of relatively new ships. Maybe we should buy them?

If you're talking about the Littoral Combat Ship? Then No! A million bazillion times NO!

[Mattjvd]

If you're talking about the Littoral Combat Ship? Then No! A million bazillion times NO!

Yeah what a mess that has been. Lightly armed aluminium ships with engines (or clutches, rather) that don't work aren't going to replace a frigate. Good for coastal patrol ships (when they fix the propulsion) but not a cost effective platform for that mission.

[Mattjvd]

Yer welcome; published and distributed by the MoD. At least we sent a naval ship up there with weapons capability, minimal as it may be (BAE Bushmaster and a couple of Browning machine gun emplacements I believe).

I really have no idea to this day why especially certain classes of even the new CCG ships - including the yet to be built heavy polar icebreaker John Diefenbaker - remain or are intended to be unarmed especially since some of them will be deployed for Arctic patrols.

In the event of an "incident" as China and Russia move to assert their naval presence in the north I suppose the CG ships are expected to yell over the radio-comm system as loudly as they can, then scoot out of the area ASAP. Literally a couple of the CG offshore patrol ships have machine guns but that capability does not extend even to that entire class, of which we have about 8 ships if memory serves. Again I don't know why that is.

Not our Coast Guard's role. The Coast Guard is not a paramilitary organization like it is in many other nations (or even full military like in the US). It's more like a transportation safety, search and rescue, and scientific organization with some limited policing powers. Closer to commercial vehicle inspectors mixed with a fire department than a Navy.

Now you can debate if that role is correct or not, but the ships being built (unarmed) for the Coast Guard do fit their mission. The Coast Guard will be responding to commercial vessels that try to go through the NW passage without permission, the Navy (if they are already in the area) or the Air Force will respond to armed incursions.

Edited by Mattjvd, 02 March 2021 - 10:25 AM.

[AllseeingEye]

Not our Coast Guard's role. The Coast Guard is not a paramilitary organization like it is in many other nations (or even full military like in the US). It's more like a transportation safety, search and rescue, and scientific organization with some limited policing powers. Closer to commercial vehicle inspectors mixed with a fire department than a Navy.

Now you can debate if that role is correct or not, but the ships being built (unarmed) for the Coast Guard do fit their mission. The Coast Guard will be responding to commercial vessels that try to go through the NW passage without permission, the Navy (if they are already in the area) or the Air Force will respond to armed incursions.

 

Yup I know what the CG role is and yes again you are correct my comments certainly point to disagreeing with it; the "navy" gets up to the far north so infrequently in any kind of force it would be a minor miracle if they happened to be there at the exact place and point in time to assist a CG vessel in the event "something" happened. Our terra firma naval "presence" in the Arctic at Nanisivik as with everything to do with the CF was supposed to be operational years ago - is now pushed out to 2022, which I will believe when I see it, based on the track record of DND to get things done.

 

Originally it was envisioned as the home base for up to 3 of the new patrol ships but - naturally - after more detailed planning the design was completely downgraded to little more than a refueling/docking station; moreover its operational time was also scaled back to just a four-month period, in the summertime which would be of little use in the event the Russians or someone else decided to start something in November. Or December. Or March. Etc.

 

Ditto for the air force and when they are flying up north they do so in very small numbers (typically two F-18's) very occasionally conducting a sovereignty flight or working with the Alaska Air Guard to escort the odd Russian aircraft away from NA airspace. Regardless we have all of the one air base anywhere near the Arctic Circle (Cold Lake), our other fighter base being in Quebec, is not not very well positioned to do much in the far north, at least quickly.

 

IMO if they're going to patrol the North - as with our offshore CG patrol vessels which are armed with machine guns - any Canadian ship, CG or otherwise, which purports to watch over and defend Canadian sovereign territory should IMO have at least the minimal teeth to back it up.

 

"Help", be that the RCN, RCAF or even the Americans, may or may not be available when most needed.

 

Given the state of the world today its unlikely of course that anything serious will happen tomorrow, but a year, two years out....who knows. China is growing exponentially and is asserting itself, well....everywhere. Aside from Putin re-activating and updating all the old Soviet-era Arctic bases, the Chinese have made very plain their intention to send naval units through the Arctic. It would be nice if we could respond if necessary with something with more oomph than a water cannon or bad language....