959 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

Maybe they want the Conservatives to take this over, so they're dragging their foot to hand them the hot potato?

[dkuitu]

Should deferral make things cheaper? Technology has vastly improved since the 80s. And stuff should be faster/easier to produce, no?

 

No, military equipment is never economical. Take any military component and it's likely going to cost you 5 times what a consumer grade equivalent, and for things like weapons systems, advanced radar systems, advanced sonar arrays, etc. where there is no civilian equivalent the prices are extortionately high because they're so specialized. 

[Mike K.]

I guess. But can't we just buy UK-made ships that are already tried and true and appear to be way lower priced? 

 

$84 billion for a few boats doesn't appear like a good deal.

[spanky123]

War ship fleet replacement is now costed at $84 billion.

 

At a time when 25% of people have no doctor and millions can't find an affordable place to live.

 

Years ago when our replenishment ship mysteriously caught fire and was subsequently written off, the Navy decided to employ a private military contractor to provide the service with their own ship while they embarked on the decades long journal to build a replacement. From what I have heard it has gone very well with costs far below that of the Navy procuring and running their own vessel. Perhaps the Navy should consider the same with its main fleet. 

[AllseeingEye]

At a time when 25% of people have no doctor and millions can't find an affordable place to live.

 

Years ago when our replenishment ship mysteriously caught fire and was subsequently written off, the Navy decided to employ a private military contractor to provide the service with their own ship while they embarked on the decades long journal to build a replacement. From what I have heard it has gone very well with costs far below that of the Navy procuring and running their own vessel. Perhaps the Navy should consider the same with its main fleet. 

 

Ah yes the Asteryx....actually considering we were in the position of having zero capability to refuel the surface fleet at sea - bit of a problem that....navy ships tend to operate in ocean environments after all - leasing a civilian tanker was not bad out of the box thinking, at least by the low, radically underfunded standards of Canadian military strategy.

 

The only problem is, as a civilian ship, it cannot operate in harm's way. Not to mention that while the fittings for 3x CIWS anti-aircraft weapons were installed during its conversion at the Davie shipyard the actual - you know, weapons themselves - are not. A rather significant impediment I would say. "Hey guys we know you're low on fuel and getting desperate but as there are some 'baddies' in the area we can't help you. Sorry about that. Good luck!"

 

On top of all that tactically its laughable to think while we have two fleets we have but one single refuelling ship which, as far as I am aware, cannot be in two oceans at once. I guess the 'plan' would be to rely on the Americans to fill that gap - as usual - if things got serious out there on the high seas. 

 

Contrast this situation with Australia, a country with roughly 2/3 our population but one that unlike us actually takes national defence matters semi-seriously, and their fleet replenishment ship situation. Note their navy replenishment ships are actual military vessels, purpose-designed to that end so they can operate in a combat theatre, and not converted glorified tankers:

 

https://en.wikipedia...enishment_oiler

[max.bravo]

Good info, ASE, thanks for sharing. 

If our Navy is useless for actual military/defense, then you have to wonder, what is it for? Is it just a show so we can be part of NATO or what?

[spanky123]

Ah yes the Asteryx....actually considering we were in the position of having zero capability to refuel the surface fleet at sea - bit of a problem that....navy ships tend to operate in ocean environments after all - leasing a civilian tanker was not bad out of the box thinking, at least by the low, radically underfunded standards of Canadian military strategy.

 

The only problem is, as a civilian ship, it cannot operate in harm's way. Not to mention that while the fittings for 3x CIWS anti-aircraft weapons were installed during its conversion at the Davie shipyard the actual - you know, weapons themselves - are not. A rather significant impediment I would say. "Hey guys we know you're low on fuel and getting desperate but as there are some 'baddies' in the area we can't help you. Sorry about that. Good luck!"

 

On top of all that tactically its laughable to think while we have two fleets we have but one single refuelling ship which, as far as I am aware, cannot be in two oceans at once. I guess the 'plan' would be to rely on the Americans to fill that gap - as usual - if things got serious out there on the high seas. 

 

Contrast this situation with Australia, a country with roughly 2/3 our population but one that unlike us actually takes national defence matters semi-seriously, and their fleet replenishment ship situation. Note their navy replenishment ships are actual military vessels, purpose-designed to that end so they can operate in a combat theatre, and not converted glorified tankers:

 

https://en.wikipedia...enishment_oiler

 

 

My understanding is that this is fairly standard for a variety of reasons, Navy supply ships have mounts installed for weapons but do not generally have that equipment mounted during peacetime. 

[AllseeingEye]

Good info, ASE, thanks for sharing. 

If our Navy is useless for actual military/defense, then you have to wonder, what is it for? Is it just a show so we can be part of NATO or what?

 

Good question. In part the short answer today is "yes"; back in the day - from the 1970's and earlier - Canada actually had an extremely capable navy. We had the ships and the weapon systems and more critically the skills and the manpower and the will to be a player - and an effective one, within NATO. Canada was top notch when it came to antisubmarine capabilities and as I recall we actually invented and perfected the dipping sonar technology for detecting Soviet submarines.

 

Over the last 40 years decade by decade our capability has inexorably declined and eroded to the point a retired RCN officer, later a military analyst, was once quoted several years ago as saying that the best thing he RCN could do with its ships in the event of a major conflict was to "...turn our ships about, get out of the way, and save lives. Our own".

 

Our allies have been leaning on us for decades now to buck up and make a difference again; however successive governments - including Tory administrations - have failed to do so. I believe this year was the first time since 2014 that we were unable to fulfil our historic mission to include even that one single warship that is part of NATO's standing Atlantic force, something we once upon a time prided ourselves on. In the past that one RCN ship on occasion was designated the flag ship of that force. But think about that: this year we couldn't muster up one a single ship because the navy is so small and so stretched it was an impossible ask.

 

As most folks probably know our air force is badly aging, our army essentially needs to be rebuilt from the ground up; its tiny - our total number of front line, combat ready and effective ground fighting troops, excluding admin staff, cooks, medics etc., - would barely fill up GM Place in Vancouver. And it lacks so many top of the line weapons systems both qualitatively and quantitatively, it's doubtful we have the ability to spend enough $, even if we wanted to, to get it back any time soon to the point where it would make a difference in a major conflict. Remember the CAF/army was stretched to its very limit providing a few weapons to Ukraine while simultaneously sending a couple of hundred troops to the Maritimes to assist with cleaning up the aftermath of hurricane Fiona....

 

Back to your question: since naval vessels are the most visible of any CAF force, and therefore have use politically, it is mainly for that reason why we dump most of whatever cash we do have, on it. Remember way back in the day major powers would often "show the flag" by sending naval units on around the world jaunts, none more so than the British and in more recent times, the Americans. They didn't send tanks or aircraft, they sent the navy, and for that very reason.

 

So yes 'optics' do matter, even today. To be an active contributor to NATO or any alliance you have to be seen to be a contributor. Unfortunately what our federal government can't fathom is visibility aside, actual readiness and capability matter too. If something really bad happened on the international scene its not like Canada can call "...time out fellas! Hey Putin, China and North Korea...we need a year to get up to speed...can you hold off for twelve months?" 

[max.bravo]

What is our nation becoming? Between housing unaffordability, poor access to medical care, inflation, the rampant Woke SJW agenda that's undermining institutions, eroding the rule of law, enabling addiction via free drugs and free housing, and making police forces impotent, and now the results of having zero pride in our military and not wanting to defend ourselves... what will be left of this country when the house of cards falls down? 

None of these destructive forces show any sign of slowing. Once we lose what made us great, chances are we won't be able to recover. 

It sounds like we're basically relying upon continued stability on the world stage to ensure nothing falls apart? if so, that sounds like a bad bet...

[AllseeingEye]

My understanding is that this is fairly standard for a variety of reasons, Navy supply ships have mounts installed for weapons but do not generally have that equipment mounted during peacetime. 

 

Depends on the navy, in some of them it certainly is the case. The bigger issue however is that the ship is not designated "RCN" - its "MV" (Motor Vessel), meaning it is a civilian ship under the command of a civilian master and that is the main reason it can't sail into harm's path. Of course the majority of those personnel on a typical mission are military, however at the end of the day she remains a leased (not RCN owned) vessel to the military.

 

If I recall correctly the original lease expires next year with an option for a further 5-year extension.

 

Given the eye watering head spinning delays incurred by just about any Canadian military procurement project you can think of or name, it wouldn't surprise in the least if that option is picked up. I'd be highly surprised if the two purpose-built and designed replenishment JSS ships actually hit the water and go into RCN service anywhere close to their original timeline.

[LJ]

IIRC neither Protecteur nor Provider had any weapons mounted.

[Mike K.]

Protecteur was 100% civilian manned, no?

Or close to it?

[LJ]

^Nope. 

[Mike K.]

Sorry, I meant Astrix, not Protecteur. There was something about civilians/non commissioned sailors, and that ship.

[spanky123]

Sorry, I meant Astrix, not Protecteur. There was something about civilians/non commissioned sailors, and that ship.

 

It was 'manned' by civilians although many were ex-Navy. From what I understand, it was refershing to have promotions based on merit and not having to worry about a wrong pronoun costing you a career and pension.

Edited by spanky123, 30 October 2022 - 11:21 AM.

[Mike K.]

That’s what it was. Thank you.

[Victoria Watcher]

The Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Esquimalt is installing a new siren that will convey messages of warning across the confines of CFB Esquimalt but it is likely it will also be heard by all nearby municipalities.

 

https://www.victoria...ication-system/

 

 

It’s meant to be a mass notification system and the siren will sound once per month as a test. The test will take place on the first Wednesday of every month at 11 a.m. This is to cause the least amount of disruption possible. 

 

 

Here’s what the siren will alert for and sound like: 

 

• Test tone: The 30 second test tone that will take place once per month will consist of alternating tones and it will be followed by a voice message that will say, “This is a test of the siren system. It is only a test. If this had been a real alarm, listen to this system for further instructions. This is a test.”
• Wail tone: Means an evacuation is impending. It will last one minute and will sound like a wailing siren.
  • Evacuation warning: This is an immediate evacuation warning. It will follow a wail tone, then a voice will say, “An evacuation order has been issued for the base and you must leave now. This is not a drill; an evacuation order has been issued for the Base, leave now.” 
  • Tsunami alert: It will follow a wail tone, then a voice will say, “Tsunami alert, tsunami alert. Move to higher ground or inland now.” This is not a drill. Tsunami alert, tsunami alert, move to higher ground now.” 

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 04 November 2022 - 08:28 AM.

[Mike K.]

Hasn’t this siren and spoken alert system been operating for years?

[Matt R.]

There was a siren behind the Gordon Head Store for decades.

[Victoria Watcher]

There was a siren behind the Gordon Head Store for decades.

And rumours of a bomb shelter right under. A lump in the ground. Unfounded I think.

There was also one near Horner Park on Palo Alto Street. Near Mt. Tolmie.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 04 November 2022 - 05:17 PM.