# Re: Navy ties up its fleet



## schart28 (17 Jan 2007)

CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2007/01/17/navy-tieup.html

HMCS Halifax should be on a sovereignty patrol off the East Coast, but the ship is tied up because the Canadian navy doesn't have the money to send it on the 35-day mission.

"The reason HMCS Halifax's patrol is delayed is because we have started a financial review," Lieut. Marie-Claude Gagné, a navy spokeswoman, told CBC News.

All but two ships on the East and West Coasts are tied up. HMCS Ottawa is in the Persian Gulf, and Gagné said HMCS Charlottetown is out performing sea trials.

"If you're asking who else is out on the Atlantic coast, the answer is no one," she said.

Senator Colin Kenny wonders why Canada has a navy if there's no money for the ships to patrol the coast.

"It's not a good thing to run out of money," said Kenny, chair of the Senate's security and defence committee. "I think it's because of the extra costs with oil and the demands of Afghanistan."

The Defence Department will spend almost $1.5 billion on the mission in Afghanistan this fiscal year. But at the same time, the money the navy has to send ships to sea has been cut by about 10 per cent.

"It's obvious they don't have money for fuel or personnel," said Nova Scotia MP Peter Stoffer.

Stoffer called it "very disappointing" that the navy ships are tied up, and said Canadians should be alarmed.

"Not having these ships patrol leaves a big hole in our security," he said. "You can have illegal immigrants, drug traffickers, people who want to do us harm or harm our neighbours.

"The Americans have consistently accused Canada of having leaky security measures, and this will just prove to them that we are not even patrolling our own coasts for security measures."

Sources tell CBC News that the navy's financial woes will continue until the end of March, and that all patrols will be cancelled until then.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Jan 2007)

I wonder how many politicians will cut 10% from their budgets or pet projects to help deal with this issue!


----------



## NavyGuy2006 (17 Jan 2007)

This is probally an on going issue and will probally not stop at the next fiscal year. There are 3 280's awaiting some much needed Drydock time. The Halifax class is going to be needing the mid life upgrades in 3 years, and what is going to stop the AOR's from rotting away. I feel that the sub program that now got a mitten full of cash, is one of the places they need to look at. We can't afford to keep throwing money into the open hulls of the Victoria and Cornerbrook. We need to look at a fleet point of view of what it takes to keep the important ships in tip top shape. We need frigates more than subs. We have destroyers that are flagships for NATO that need money. Without patrol ships we are always going to rely on our nearby cousin (BRITTS) or the neighbour down south(US) to pull us out of the S*** if it does hit the fan. We already are known for this, why continue to be a part of this revolving door story. Get our acts together and stop wasting money.


----------



## Sub_Guy (17 Jan 2007)

Interesting, I could have sworn that we had 5 ships out on the west coast last night....


This does stink, but hey if you are on a ship, enjoy it because you never know when the tempo could go through the roof again.


----------



## Hebridean (17 Jan 2007)

I am too young to remember- has this ever happened before?


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Jan 2007)

yes. its a tradition.


----------



## Allen (17 Jan 2007)

The patrols may yet go ahead...

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2007/01/17/navy-tieup.html


----------



## geo (17 Jan 2007)

Hmmm... now that the media has sunk it's teeth into this story, I figure that someone will either say
1 - the army & airforce need all the cash to go ahead with missions and new capital acquisitions & the navy will have to wait it's turn

OR

2 - just going thru a 3rd quarter review & the entire fleet will sail out in short order to prove the press wrong

Hmmm.... decisions, decisions


----------



## CrazyCanuck (17 Jan 2007)

All the more reason to keep the subs; they have *electric* motors 

Personally I'm finding this rather discouraging as I'm right in the process of joining the navy at the moment and would prefer not to spend my career wondering whether or not there will be any money to do anything more than paint the hull.


----------



## geo (17 Jan 2007)

Boater............ electric motors that need diesels to charge up the batteries (I think)


Thinking some more about this story............

I wonder if this has anything to do with the CDS' intention to use blue & black tradesmen for overseas missions in support roles?

Could be,  Possibly,  maybe


----------



## FredDaHead (17 Jan 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Hmmm... now that the media has sunk it's teeth into this story, I figure that someone will either say
> 1 - the army & airforce  need all the cash to go ahead with missions and new capital acquisitions & the navy will have to wait it's turn
> 
> OR
> ...



No-one is going to mention the chair force, with this new army-centric vision of "everything exists to support the army" and the baggage that goes with it. But hey, what do you expect? We pimp the infantry (not a bad thing, I must say) and basically never speak a word of what the Navy is doing--of course nobody's going to provide money for the Navy!

It's time we have a bunch of CBC specials about sailors instead of soldiers!


----------



## CrazyCanuck (17 Jan 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Boater............ electric motors that need diesels to charge up the batteries (I think)



Was really more for the sake of humour, though it could become true(er) if this AIP stuff actually works, how comparable to the price of diesel would that stuff be?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (17 Jan 2007)

There's a lot of slight of hand going on right now. I personally think that the MND protests too much that we are not sacrificing Navy Ops at the expense of the Afghanistan mission. :


----------



## Journeyman (17 Jan 2007)

Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> *Interesting, I could have sworn that we had 5 ships out on the west coast last night....*


You may find that this is some "politicking" by the Navy to highlight that there are two other services. There may be any number of ships still sailing...but those are _training_; there may be decreased budget for _operational_ sailing - - a small nuance that the media will likely miss, but gets people like Senator Kenny and Nova Scotia MP Peter Stoffer (like, who cares what an NDP member has to say  : ) weighing in on the matter.
The navy continues to train, but their budget gets increased so Canada doesn't look like a 3rd World country just off our coasts.



			
				Frederik G said:
			
		

> * ...with this new army-centric vision of "everything exists to support the army"*


Fred, Fred, Fred.....a couple points, if I may
1) You're just a cadet; we'll tell you when you can have an opinion  
2) You won't be allowed said opinion until you're old enough to realize that "army-centric" is not _new_. 

Now, try and keep up here....only the infantry can hold ground. 
As humans, we live...where? That's right, _on_ the ground. 
Therefore, until you grow gills or wings, the army is quite correctly the premier service, which you support which, _if_ you make it out of RMC, you may have the privilege of supporting.

Questions? None? Good.
 ;D


----------



## geo (17 Jan 2007)

Journeyman...........


> Now, try and keep up here....only the infantry can hold ground.


Only with the help of the trusty sapper!


----------



## geo (17 Jan 2007)

(now that they have their big toys for big boys)

Chimo!


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (17 Jan 2007)

I know that all you army guys are joking. We all know that the Navy is the Senior Service.  ;D


----------



## geo (17 Jan 2007)

Guess the navy will be doing a sortie sometime soon 



			
				IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> I know that all you army guys are joking. We all know that the Navy is the Senior Service.  ;D



Not bad for a bunch of old farts


----------



## navymich (17 Jan 2007)

schart28 said:
			
		

> All but two ships on the East and West Coasts are tied up. HMCS Ottawa is in the Persian Gulf, and Gagné said HMCS Charlottetown is out performing sea trials.



Do they not consider MCDVs ships (I can just imagine the comments on that statement  :), or do they fall under a different budget?  Because I know that at least one of them on the West Coast is at sea right now.


(and the non-serious side of me says: of course they are tying up ships. They are in mourning because navymich has defected to the blue!)


----------



## Journeyman (17 Jan 2007)

> Only with the help of the trusty sapper!





> and the folks in the black hats too.


Yes, yes. "Infantry. You stand alone, but you're never alone." You're welcome to assist my argument that everyone is there to support the tip of the spear...and we're grateful.

But this is a Navy thread, so my intent was to _merely_ educate a Naval Cadet on the realities of the world.



> We all know that the Navy is the Senior Service


 Absolutely. No argument about you guys being the senior citizens, or whatever. I stated only that the Army is the "premier service"....as noted sagely by NCdt Fred himself (although not as eloquently)

;D


----------



## CrazyCanuck (17 Jan 2007)

Since the navy is the senior service does that mean that an Ordinary Seaman outranks a Private? I've always been curious about what "senior service" really means.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (17 Jan 2007)

:rofl:


----------



## navymich (17 Jan 2007)

Boater said:
			
		

> Since the navy is the senior service does that mean that an Ordinary Seaman outranks a Private? I've always been curious about what "senior service" really means.



Neither of them outrank each other.  Senior service is the term used as the navy has been around longer then the army and the air force.  That is the simplified version.  I am sure there is a historian or two who can give exact dates and info for you.  IIRC (that is, if I haven't mind dumped all of my navy trivia yet), it was 4 May 1910 for the Navy.


----------



## CrazyCanuck (17 Jan 2007)

Thanks for the information

The Canadian army is definetly older than the navy so maybe "Senior Service" is a carry over from the RN


----------



## Nfld Sapper (17 Jan 2007)

From wikipedia.org

On March 29, 1909, George Foster introduced a resolution in the House of Commons calling for the establishment of a Canadian Naval Service. The resolution was not successful; however, on January 12, 1910, the government of Prime Minster Sir Wilfrid Laurier took Foster's resolution and introduced it as the Naval Service Bill. After third reading, the bill received royal assent on *May 4, 1910, and became the Naval Service Act*, administered by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries at the time. The official title of the navy was the Naval Service of Canada (also Canadian Naval Forces), and the first Director of the Naval Service of Canada was Rear-Admiral Charles Kingsmill (Royal Navy, retired), who was previously in charge of the Marine Service of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.

The act called for:

a permanent force 
a reserve (to be called up in emergency) 
a volunteer reserve (to be called up in emergency) 
the establishment of a naval college 
The British cruiser Rainbow was the first ship commissioned into Canada's navy on August 4, 1910, at Portsmouth, England. She arrived at Esquimalt, British Columbia, on November 7, 1910, and carried out fishery patrols and training duties on Canada's west coast.

Another Royal Navy cruiser, HMS Niobe, became the second ship commissioned into the Canadian navy on September 6, 1910, at Devonport in England and arrived at Halifax Nova Scotia, on October 21, 1910—Trafalgar Day.

*The Naval Service of Canada changed its name to Royal Canadian Navy on January 30, 1911*, but it was not until August 29 that the use of "Royal" Canadian Navy was permitted by King George V.
===========================================================================================================

So 1911 would be the start date for the (Royal) Canadain Navy.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Jan 2007)

Ladies and Gentlemen we will _not_ get in a p1ssing content about who is contributing more to the GWOT, who is the senior service, blah blah blah...back on topic


----------



## GAP (17 Jan 2007)

O'Connor promises funds for navy
Canadian Press
Article Link

HALIFAX — Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor is promising more funding to the navy so it can buy the fuel it needs to send one of its warship on a fisheries patrol off Canada's East Coast.

Mr. O'Connor said late Wednesday his department will come up with the money to send HMCS Halifax on the 35-day mission.

"I was given an estimate today that the navy would need $3 million to $5 million for fuel, essentially to meet these fishery patrols and a few other issues," he told the CBC.

"And I've told our officials, make sure they get the $3 million to $5 million."

The navy said earlier in the day that it had to postpone the patrol and cancel such things as overtime and travel as it scrambles to save money sapped by the army's costly mission in Afghanistan.

Marie-Claude Gagne, a spokeswoman for the navy on the East Coast, said the decision to suspend the patrol came as officials started a financial review before the end of the fiscal year in March.

Ms. Gagne said the patrol, which costs roughly $26,000 a day, could have pushed the navy over tight spending limits and leave it in the red.

"We're raising awareness of those activities we planned for, that unless provided additional funding, we will not be able to execute," she said.
More on link


----------



## CrazyCanuck (17 Jan 2007)

OK, I just read some of the comments to that article and I have no clue where some of those people are coming from. Lots of people talking about the conservatives throwing money everywhere and uncontrollable spending. Lots of them seem to think the Liberals could do a better job on keeping the military in good condition. There logic absolutely confuses me... but then again it is the Globe :


----------



## geo (18 Jan 2007)

Ayup... I guess you could call this a sortie of the fleet.............


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Jan 2007)

Fleet sorties are different things alltogether...


----------



## navymich (18 Jan 2007)

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=b9c2f53e-fdf7-4c49-afca-27576da42822

Navy patrol postponed, then back on again
Analysts blame funding woes

KELLY PATRICK
National Post

Thursday, January 18, 2007






CREDIT: Paul Darrow, Reuters
Canadian navy ships docked at CFB Halifax yesterday.

The Minister of National Defence yesterday said Ottawa would come up with a few million dollars needed to restore an East Coast fisheries patrol that had been postponed due to funding concerns.

A dearth of money had forced the navy to postpone indefinitely a patrol that was to leave port this week and to reduce the number of frigates scheduled to take part in a joint Canada- U.S. exercise near Hawaii next month.

But Gordon O'Connor said yesterday the navy would be allotted extra funds to ensure the patrol proceeds.

"I was given an estimate today that the navy would need three to five million for fuel, essentially to meet these fishery patrols and a few other issues. And I've told our officials make sure they get the $3- to $5-million dollars," the Defence Minister told the CBC.

Experts said the temporary postponement underscores the budget pressures that result from Canada's mission in Afghanistan, but Mr. O'Connor told the CBC the issues are unrelated.

For staff at Maritime Forces Atlantic, new belt-tightening measures also extend to a freeze on overtime, professional development and temporary-duty travel, said Lieutenant Marie-Claude Gagne, a spokeswoman for the navy on the East Coast.

"All of this is being done to ensure we stay within our funding allocation," she explained.

The frigate HMCS Halifax and its crew of approximately 200 sailors was scheduled to set sail on Monday on a 35- day fisheries patrol through the waters of Newfoundland's Grand Banks.

Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, the chairman of the Senate's security and defence committee, called the patrol's postponement "outrageous."

"It has a negative impact on [sailors'] training ability," he said before Mr. O'Connor said it would be restored. "And it's extraordinary that we would announce to the whole world that we don't have the intention to have sovereignty patrols off the East Coast."

The Navy opted to postpone the patrol -- which would have cost at least $650,000 -- after a financial review of Maritime Forces Atlantic's operations was launched at the beginning of January.

Maritime Forces Pacific is undergoing a similar financial review, said a spokesman for the navy on the West Coast.

But Lieutenant-Commander Mark MacIntyre said the cost-cutting efforts seem not to have sliced as deeply in the Pacific as in the Atlantic.

"We have five ships at sea, which is about normal for this time of year," he said. "We haven't tied up any [vessels] because of this budget issue."

However, Maritime Forces Pacific has reduced to two from three the number of frigates it will send on an anti-submarine exercise with U.S. vessels around Hawaii in mid-February.

Although the navy spokespeople could not say whether their funds were being siphoned off specifically to fund Canada's commitment to Afghanistan, observers believe it is likely.

"I think that it's probably driven by Afghanistan because Afghanistan has certainly increased the tempo in the air force, as well as in the army," said retired Colonel Brian MacDonald, a senior defence analyst with the Conference of Defence Associations.

The cost of everything from danger pay for soldiers to maintenance for the fleets of both the air force and the army would have risen with the intensity of the Afghan mission.

"For example, the army's fleet of vehicles get damaged by the bad guys -- that increases your maintenance costs for the army," he said.

Lieut. Gagne said it is common for the navy to plan exercises and patrols whose total cost could exceed the money the navy is allotted at the start of the fiscal year. Additional funding usually rolls in throughout the year, she said.

For example, the Canadian navy's proposed budget for the 2005-2006 fiscal year was approximately $241-million; by year's end, however, the navy had received a total of about $315-million.

"I'm feeling that this is being overblown because it's a process that takes place every year and funding still continues to come in," she said.

"We still have 2? months to juggle funds. Actually, we might not even have to cancel anything."
© National Post 2007


----------



## geo (18 Jan 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Fleet sorties are different things alltogether...



I know.... but figuratively,  after having been beached, anything going out is a sortie of sorts.


----------



## Cloud Cover (18 Jan 2007)

There are some salient points being made by both the media and their analysts. Canada would do very well to avoid the situation the Brits have got themselves into. The RN surface and subsurface fleet shrunk by more than 40% since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. They are close to losing their carriers with no viable, firm replacement in sight. It is ironic that where air cover is required, the RN may have to face the possibility of only deploying under the protection of the French navy  [  :-[  ] or US carriers.  The entire fixed wing fleet air arm was recently amalgamted into the airforce as a cost saving measure. The cause is not a lack of money within the UK MoD- it is the diversion to the army of funds previously allocated to the Navy, and the funding of projects for the RAF of questionable value. For example, the RAF is taking delivery of more Typhoon fighters than is reasonable required, and is involved in a JSF acquisition as well. 

There is an absolute crisis looming around the corner for the Canadian Navy- the JSS program needs to be accelerated and they must speed up the Halifax modernization program and get on with replacements- right now and not 10 years from now. There is way too much emphasis on the BHS right now and not enough on the basics.


----------



## geo (18 Jan 2007)

Which comes back to some of my previous posts that suggest we should be looking at a continuous program of shipbuilding & major refits.  Cranking out a Dozen ships in 4 or 5 years and then shutting down / dismantling our shipyards afterwards for 10 yrs or more doesn't make any sense at all.......... IMHO

Making the fleet air arm part of the RAF doesn't have to be a bad thing.  So long as the personnel are trained at working on wobbly platforms - it shouldn't make any difference at all...

Emphasis on land & air branches for the war on terror? yup... what is one to do?  so many things to buy, so little time to do it in...


----------



## Hebridean (18 Jan 2007)

Is the coast guard patrolling on the atlantic right now?  I know this has probably come up before but why not arm the coastguard to do fishery patrols and some constabular duties-they are out there anyway.  Or is hiring a couple thousand rcmp officers to serve exclusively on coastguard ships a better idea?


----------



## George Wallace (18 Jan 2007)

The Coast Guard don't have the capabilities to do it.  Their ships don't have the same speed, range and support.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Jan 2007)

The CCG ships will be out and about doing there various jobs which will include icebreaking buoy maintenance and SAR, they will not be out as far as the navy ships normally.

Sad to think that the UK politicans are so short sighted as to kill their navy, seems the Falklands is already a fading memory. Mind you they are the same group that have banned any form of self-defense there , so it is consistent.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Jan 2007)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> I am not sure what the UK has to do with our Navy being alongsides?



Just a reminder of what we should not be doing.


----------



## Neill McKay (18 Jan 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Which comes back to some of my previous posts that suggest we should be looking at a continuous program of shipbuilding & major refits.  Cranking out a Dozen ships in 4 or 5 years and then shutting down / dismantling our shipyards afterwards for 10 yrs or more doesn't make any sense at all.......... IMHO



Agreed.  In my civilian job I'm involved in a vessel procurement for a government that last went through this exercise about 15 years ago.  In addition to the issue of the actual shipbuilding capacity, you also have to consider all of the supporting staff (process and contract management, e.g.).  Wait a few years between projects and the organization starts forgetting how they did it last time -- with a lot of consequent wheel-reinvention.



> Making the fleet air arm part of the RAF doesn't have to be a bad thing.  So long as the personnel are trained at working on wobbly platforms - it shouldn't make any difference at all...



CF history from about 1968 on contains a few lessons on that subject...


----------



## rmacqueen (18 Jan 2007)

Some of the comments on here remind me of the 90's when the Libs would commit the CF to UN missions and then leave DND to foot the bill even though it wasn't supposed to come out of the regular DND budget.  

What I would be questioning, in this situation, is who was responsible for the budget forecast, why was funding allocation so out of whack with commitments and/or where did the money go?  After all, unless there was a sudden addition to the deployment/training schedule, the bean counters at NDHQ would have known what was required last fiscal year.


----------



## Drummy (18 Jan 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> I know that all you army guys are joking. We all know that the Navy is the Senior Service.  ;D



I know that RN = Real Navy. What did  RCN  stand for.    ;D

Drummy


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Jan 2007)

Hebridean said:
			
		

> Is the coast guard patrolling on the atlantic right now?  I know this has probably come up before but why not arm the coastguard to do fishery patrols and some constabular duties-they are out there anyway.  Or is hiring a couple thousand rcmp officers to serve exclusively on coastguard ships a better idea?



look up what the CCG does and their capabilities. There are several threads on it now.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (18 Jan 2007)

Drummy said:
			
		

> I know that RN = Real Navy. What did  RCN  stand for.    ;D
> 
> Drummy




RCN = Real Cr**y Navy  ;D


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (18 Jan 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> I know.... but figuratively,  after having been beached, anything going out is a sortie of sorts.



Um just a point of order. We in the Navy don't like to use the term "beached" or "grounded" An Army officer said to me today" I hear you guys are grounded!" Those terms indicate that we are no longer floating but rather have run aground and court martials and keel haulings will ensue. "Tied up,"  is the preferred term.


----------



## geo (18 Jan 2007)

Ahhhhhh
So... tie her up, lock her up and throw away the key?


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Jan 2007)

Do you doubt there is an agenda?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/01/do-you-doubt-there-is-agenda.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cloud Cover (18 Jan 2007)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Do you doubt there is an agenda?
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/01/do-you-doubt-there-is-agenda.html
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Server error.


----------



## FredDaHead (18 Jan 2007)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Server error.



Working fine for me.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Jan 2007)

Nfld Sapper said:
			
		

> RCN = Real Cr**y Navy  ;D



Do you have to be warned again?


----------



## CrazyCanuck (18 Jan 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> RCN = Real Cr**y Navy  Grin



The RCN was the navy before the merging of the armed forces, I fail to see anything "CR**y" about a navy that kept the lifeline to Britain open during WW2 and had many other accomplishments. Now as a person with a great interest in Canadian Military history I find that rather insulting, and frankly I know some vets that would too.

Edit: Don't mean to apply anything against todays navy, just to me speaking of the RCN is speaking about the navy before the merger


----------



## portcullisguy (18 Jan 2007)

Boater said:
			
		

> Thanks for the information
> 
> The Canadian army is definetly older than the navy so maybe "Senior Service" is a carry over from the RN



Yep. 

Britain has had a very long connection with the sea (think Drake's privateering, and the defeat of the Spanish Armada, for starters -- no nation could invade Britain without crossing water, no matter how powerful their army was).  Consequently, the navy was the only branch of the military that owed its allegience directly to the Sovereign (it is generally held that Henry VIII created the first serious English navy), whereas the army did not, as it was essentially taken over by Cromwell's parliament following the English Civil War (the "army" was actually made up of both royalist and parliamentary forces, many of them privately funded by wealthy peers of the realm).  This is a very oversimplified explanation, mind you.

So, the RN doesn't take an oath to the Queen (their allegience is assumed ), whereas the army (and since the 1900s, the air force) does.  Or something along those lines.

Following this several-hundred-year tradition, the Royal Navy is known as the "Senior Service" and holds precedence over the army, and the air force (who are last, because they are the most recent invention).

Since our navy was really started off by the Royal Navy, and we have carried on most of the RN's traditions, it is no surprise that the term "Senior Service" is used here, although technically, Canada had its own army before it had its own navy.  Plenty of regiments predate Confederation.  But the RCN, as it was then known as, didn't really get its feet off the ground (and into the water) until around the time of the South African war.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (18 Jan 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Do you have to be warned again?



ushup:


----------



## warspite (18 Jan 2007)

So from what I've read the navy spends around 350 milion on operations a year (going on memory here). If the government can't budget 350 million for something as basic as operations where in the world is the navy going to get the money for modernization programs let alone for new ships?


----------



## FredDaHead (18 Jan 2007)

warspite said:
			
		

> So from what I've read the navy spends around 350 milion on operations a year (going on memory here). If the government can't budget 350 million for something as basic as operations where in the world is the navy going to get the money for modernization programs let alone for new ships?



Simple: we'll stop going on operations. After all, the Navy isn't important and doesn't actually do anything, so why bother letting the fleet out? Let's just get a few new ships or modernize the ones we have and let them sit in port until we need them.  : Or better yet, let's give all the Navy's budget to the Army so they can buy shiny new things.. maybe make some gucci kit standard issue?


----------



## Spartan (19 Jan 2007)

Air Force speaks up as well - O'Connor denies.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/18/military-money.html


> Canadian air force also faces cash crunch
> Last Updated: Thursday, January 18, 2007 | 9:36 PM ET
> CBC News
> A money crunch in the Canadian military that temporarily suspended a navy mission is also affecting the air force and forcing it to look for places to trim the budget, CBC News has learned.
> ...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (19 Jan 2007)

warspite said:
			
		

> So from what I've read the navy spends around 350 milion on operations a year (going on memory here). If the government can't budget 350 million for something as basic as operations where in the world is the navy going to get the money for modernization programs let alone for new ships?



Whats your source?


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Jan 2007)

Follow the money....and the Business Plans (Level 1s through Level 3s at least.)  This clamouring is actually very hollow.  The variation in monies to which lack of Sea Days and YFR are being attributed is very minor compared to allocated Vote 1 and Vote 5 funding lines from the budget estimates released shortly after last years budget to conduct training and operations.  Frankly, both the Navy and Air Force talking about the lack of monies to conduct operations seems thin at best.  If there was a serious enough lack of money to stop operations, it would have either been A) identified at the previous quarterly cyclical resource reviews for those two services and reported to the VCDS group with plenty of forewarning, or B) the ships would STILL NOT be sailing, and aircraft would be grounded.  Folks who have done ATI's in the past have seen evidence of the Department return funds at fiscal year's end.  That's generally life with business planning for a non-profit organization...in the case of DND, when the fiscal year-end comes, what you didn't spend by 31 March is necessarily returned to the Government coffers.  I would not be surprised to see this occur again, albeit in much smaller quantity than has occurred in the past.  The last three sentences by the Navy's spokeperson seem incredibly contradictory.... 


> Lieut. Gagne said it is common for the navy to plan exercises and patrols whose total cost could exceed the money the navy is allotted at the start of the fiscal year. Additional funding usually rolls in throughout the year, she said.
> 
> For example, the Canadian navy's proposed budget for the 2005-2006 fiscal year was approximately $241-million; by year's end, however, the navy had received a total of about $315-million.
> 
> ...


....well, do you have a problem or not...apparently not. 

This should never have been a story, as evidenced by the fact that the ships are sailing.  As the Minister noted, and those who see this happen year after year, deployed operations are funded separately though incremental estimates from TB.

G2G


----------



## warspite (19 Jan 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Whats your source?


Article posted by airmich on previous page....
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=b9c2f53e-fdf7-4c49-afca-27576da42822

And also quoted by Good2Golf in the post prior to this one...


> For example, the Canadian navy's proposed budget for the 2005-2006 fiscal year was approximately $241-million; by year's end, however, the navy had received a total of about $315-million.



So the Navy does have money it's just the media blowing this out of proportion? I should have picked up on that :brickwall:


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (19 Jan 2007)

What a bunch of media "HOGWASH", It must of a been a very slow news day. 

Goes to show they'll print anything


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Jan 2007)

I am sure the Navy will have all the fuel tanks topped up prior to March 31st.


----------



## Navy_Blue (19 Jan 2007)

Its amazing how three months before March31st everyones buggets get frozen and the head shed is screaming "my god where are we going to get money for that!!!"  Then March rolls around and they are screaming "my god how are we going to spend all this money by April!!!"

 :dontpanic:


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (19 Jan 2007)

From NavyGuy2006:


> There are 3 280's awaiting some much needed Drydock time.



You do know ALQ just finished or is about to finish a major refit in BC, ATH will be going in sometime in the NEW Year and IRO most likely next year so all and all the 280s are look after.....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Jan 2007)

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> Its amazing how three months before March31st everyones buggets get frozen and the head shed is screaming "my god where are we going to get money for that!!!"  Then March rolls around and they are screaming "my god how are we going to spend all this money by April!!!"
> 
> :dontpanic:




ain't that the truth, I don't care how you spend it, just spend it!!!!!!


----------



## Gunner_Pyza (19 Jan 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> From NavyGuy2006:
> You do know ALQ just finished or is about to finish a major refit in BC, ATH will be going in sometime in the NEW Year and IRO most likely next year so all and all the 280s are look after.....



Algonquin isn't in refit right now...they haven't decided if we're going into refit or if we're going to have a long work period.  Whatever they decide it's going to start in 08.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (19 Jan 2007)

Really so this pics in the trident from 2006 in drydock were in error?

Appreciate the update then


----------



## Stoker (19 Jan 2007)

Even with no trips for the next few months, there is a silver lining. This is an excellent opportunity for the ships to catch up with preventive and corrective maintenance, EC's, refresher training, medical appointments, courses etc. This shortfall is only on the operations side of things , so far it hasn't affected our maintenance.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (19 Jan 2007)

This is not a media made up thing. The shortfall is real...as the one the Air Force is suffering. As I said at the beginning of this thread...the Minister protests too much.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Jan 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> This is not a media made up thing. The shortfall_* non-optimized apportionment from existing allocations*_ is real...as the one the Air Force is suffering. As I said at the beginning of this thread...the Minister protests too much.



In Hoc, I propose a slight modification to your quote.

G2G


----------



## Stoker (20 Jan 2007)

Cutting patrols may have backfired 



By CHRIS LAMBIE Staff Reporter and The Canadian Press

The East Coast navy's decision to cancel patrols earlier this week looks like a clever tactic to leverage more money out of Ottawa, says a defence analyst.The Halifax-based fleet reinstated fisheries patrols Thursday after getting a $5-million cash infusion from the Defence Department."I think they feel they're hard done by and maybe this was a way of trying to put a bowling ball on somebody's foot," said David Bercuson, director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary.The tactic may have backfired, however. The military has come up with enough money to reinstate the cancelled fisheries patrol, but only after going through its books to redirect funding from other areas of the Forces. Officials said Thursday they have reallocated $5 million from all aspects of Defence , including the air force, army and the department itself.The decision came after the navy's Atlantic branch cancelled a scheduled fisheries patrol and suspended overtime, certain types of travel and professional development because it had run out of money.Mr. O'Connor must have been upset over the leaked news about the cancelled patrols, Mr. Bercuson said."I'm sure that there was the proverbial shit all over the fan in the minister's little suite."While the $5 million has saved the patrols, other naval units are still hurting from the cash crunch. The budget for the Canadian Forces Naval Operations School at Stadacona has been frozen, said a source."Until further notice, we cannot order any new stock and the bottom line is we have to borrow our neighbour's pencils. Funny, but true," said the source.A trip to England the navy was planning for HMCS Corner Brook may also be in jeopardy due to budget constraints, said a submariner who spoke on condition of anonymity.Submarine movements are classified, Lt. Marie-Claude Gagne of navy public affairs said Thursday. "Nothing has been cancelled to date," she said of Corner Brook's schedule.HMCS Halifax will leave port Monday, a week late, to begin a patrol of the Grand Banks."To make up for the patrolling days that were lost due to the initial departure delays, because she is leaving a week later, we've shortened the time that she was scheduled to spend in port," Lt. Gagne said.
Due to the extra $5 million, the navy will also be able to do another similar patrol before the end of March, said Lt. Gagne, adding there will be some money left over for other unspecified projects.The Halifax-based fleet had cancelled fisheries patrols until the end of March because it was facing a $25-million shortfall from last year. Officials said about 20 per cent of the East Coast's navy's planned sea days were jeopardized by a lack of funding.The entire navy's initial allocation rose to $696.8 million this 
fiscal year from $685.7 million in 2005-06.But Maritime Forces Atlantic, which got almost $315 million from the navy in 2005-06, has only received just short of $290 million in this fiscal year.The region's top sailor issued a belt-tightening directive to his officers this week, telling them to look for ways to save money. Besides postponing Halifax's fisheries patrol, he told them to reduce spending on several items, including professional development, travel and overtime.New Democrat MP Peter Stoffer was happy to see the fisheries patrols reinstated, but upset the Conservatives didn't provide enough money to keep them running in the first place."It looks like they're budgeting on the fly here," said Mr. Stoffer, who represents Sackville-Eastern Shore. "There's no appearance of long-term, stable funding."Mr. Stoffer said he heard from a sailor Thursday that a NATO 
deployment may also be in jeopardy due to money problems."There's still a shortfall of money there," he said. Critics blamed the country's mission in Afghanistan for the East 
Coast navy's money woes, something Mr. O'Connor has strongly denied.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Jan 2007)

> ...New Democrat MP Peter Stoffer was happy to see the fisheries patrols reinstated, but upset the Conservatives didn't provide enough money to keep them running in the first place."It looks like they're budgeting on the fly here," said Mr. Stoffer, who represents Sackville-Eastern Shore. "There's no appearance of long-term, stable funding."Mr. Stoffer said he heard from a sailor Thursday that a NATO deployment may also be in jeopardy due to money problems.



Tha absolute irony of Mr. Stouffer's statements and his party's policies is nothing short of mind-boggling!


----------



## geo (20 Jan 2007)

What Mr Stouffer fails to understand is that it is 100% impossible to maintain a budget while fighting a foe.

If the beligerent threat is there, you have to counter it.  
Beligerents don't have budgets to worry about... and the NDP would be better off understanding that.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (20 Jan 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> What Mr Stouffer fails to understand is that it is 100% impossible to maintain a budget while fighting a foe.
> 
> If the beligerent threat is there, you have to counter it.
> Beligerents don't have budgets to worry about... and the NDP would be better off understanding that.



That's not exactly true.

If you used the following model, you wouldn't have a problem:

Defence Budget includes funding for all Domestic Defence Operations including:
1)  Salaries
2)  Equipment & Building Maintenance, Upgrade & Renovation
3)  All Normal Cycle Procurement based on an updated and followed White Paper

Foreign Affairs Budget includes all funding for International Deployments including:
1)  Incremental increases in salary (Combat Zone Pay)
2)  Transportation Costs
3)  Additional Logisitics, Supply & Ammunition
4)  Battle Damage Repair & Replacement
5)  All PRT Costs
6)  Incremental Training Costs
7)  Deployment-specific procurement required 

The fact is in my humble opinion (as a finance guy, and not a soldier) the two need to be separated as the current model in which the CDS has to bury overseas operations costs into a budget that should be stable and designed for domestic operations and sustainment of a known force size, is beyond nuts.  No business would ever try to account in such a fashion.  If a boss told them try, the accountants and CFO would tell them to take a flying leap.

Frankly, I'm surprised Hillier hasn't broached this topic publicly because I don't think without correcting this imbalance, you'll ever get the funds necessary for proper force regeneration.  

That and for the love of God, stop providing press releases with full life cycle costs.  The sticker shock kills any good will the public has.  It's the equivalent of telling your friends you just bought a bungalow in Petawawa for $450,000.  The sticker costs was only $195,000 but the 30-year life cycle costs including projected roof replacement, window replacement, furnace replacement, indoor/outdoor painting and municipal taxes will be another $245,000.


Matthew.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jan 2007)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> That's not exactly true.
> 
> If you used the following model, you wouldn't have a problem:
> 
> ...



That would mean that DFAIT would have to cover huge and hugely unpredictable costs from within (relative to DND) a tiny budget.

I agree with the principle of what you are proposing but Parliament should be asked to vote supplementary estimates – more than once per year, if necessary – to provide funds for military operations which exceed the planned/programmed/budgeted expenditures.  This accomplishes two things:

1.	It gives DND some planning certainty; and

2.	It gives Parliament some addition control over the Executive’s capacity to wage war – as was planned back in around 1265 (_Simon de Montfort_, etc).

In a perfect world all government departments would be required to express all spending plans, including personnel costs, in life cycle cost terms.  It is a bit more difficult than the preferred _capital cost + lies and evasions_ model currently in use, but not impossible.


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Jan 2007)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> That would mean that DFAIT would have to cover huge and hugely unpredictable costs from within (relative to DND) a tiny budget.
> 
> I agree with the principle of what you are proposing but Parliament should be asked to vote supplementary estimates – more than once per year, if necessary – to provide funds for military operations which exceed the planned/programmed/budgeted expenditures.  This accomplishes two things:
> 
> ...


In our parliamentary system, this is the role of the Treasury Board and the War Cabinet. A munitions and logistics minister is required [ala CD Howe], with the ministerial authority to speed up procurement of equipment and supplies to meet the requirements of the Minister of National Defence. In turn the MND can do the job of overseeing the militayr's implementation the political policy that defines success in the war as set out by the War Cabinet.  

Take the example of the present war. As far as I can see, the ongoing method of giving effect to all of the above is too vague and rather indistinguishable from any other government policy of the day.  In other words, since 911 (and the 40 years preceding that day) no Canadian government and no sitting parliament has seriously turned its mind to fighting "the war", or any war for that matter. Thus far, they have only "participated" without "leading" for fear of the political cost. This applies to the current government and the last. For the army, even with the creeping cost of dead and wounded, worn out or wearing out equipment, no where near enough practical effort is being put into this problem. Too much theory, not enough action. For the Navy, even less. 

For the record, I am not saying the current war requires anything near a total war footing by Canada and Canadians, but somebody please step up to the plate and get serious about this thing from a wholistic, long term point of view. If we are not prepared to do that, we should get out of it altogether on the understanding that Canada would very quickly suffer the consequences. 

There is a visible dysfunctionality that is drastic and unsettling in both government and parliament attitude towards defence and more generally, the attitude of Canadians about it's Navy. That is to say the neither the government or parliament do anything beyond marginal consequence in its maritme naval oversight role. Certainly neither institution makes real any serious effort at all to explain to Canadians the purpose and need for a Navy. In the case of the Navy, a cyclical approach to fleet planning is required for purposes of self preservation. The cycle requires clear political and parliamentary support so that it is clear to all concerned what the intentions of Canada are as a Maritime nation with an interest in international affairs. Right now, all indications are the intent is to reduce scope and scale of capability. 

Fine- accept the consequences and formalize that reduction so that all concerned know where they stand.  Right now, the Navy seems to feel it needed a few headlines to wake people up. Unfortunately, they either picked the wrong issue to make headlines, [albeit it was a better choice than denying that a burning, sinking sub was not a good investment] or they failed to contain what appears to be a non-issue. Either way they may have scuppered themselves until they refloat the next idea.


----------



## warspite (21 Jan 2007)

whiskey601...
+1


----------



## navymich (22 Jan 2007)

I wonder how much money they will save by doing this: 



> R 191730Z JAN 07
> FM NAVRESHQ QUEBEC
> TO NAVRESGEN
> BT
> ...


----------



## navymich (26 Jan 2007)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2007/01/26/navy-nato.html

*
No NATO exercise for cash-strapped navy*
Last Updated: Friday, January 26, 2007 | 5:00 PM AT
CBC News

The Canadian navy is pulling three ships out of planned NATO exercises off Nova Scotia next week, citing a lack of funding.

There's no money for the warships to join the U.S. and German ships, navy officials said Friday.

"It looks like we're going to wait to use our training assets, our training funds, and what we have available for later on in the quarter," said Canadian Commodore Denis Rouleau, who handed over command of the NATO fleet.

The decision to tie up the three ships follows a decision two weeks ago to cancel a scheduled sovereignty exercise.

HMCS Halifax was supposed to patrol off Newfoundland, but the navy couldn't afford fuel. Hours after CBC News aired the story, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said $3.5 million would be made available and the ship was ordered to sea.

Now the navy says other exercises and missions could be cancelled because of the budget crunch.

Defence analyst Steve Staples suggested the navy may be playing politics to get more money in the next budget.

"I think they're playing a dangerous game by trying to embarrass the government," said Staples, with the Ottawa-based Rideau Institute.

Canadians want a military that defends our sovereignty, he said, so the defence minister should tell the navy to get those ships out and "quit playing games."

The American admiral who heads the NATO fleet said Canada's ships will be missed.

"I'm sure it would be valuable to us to have Canadian ships sail with us," said Rear Admiral Michael Mahon.

At this point, only American and German ships will take part in the NATO exercise, which begins Monday plying the waters between Halifax and Boston.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (26 Jan 2007)

It's embarrassing all right but it should be the politicians that embarrassed. Our friends have come to call and asked us to play but we're not allowed out.  :rage:


----------



## navymich (26 Jan 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Our friends have come to call and asked us to play but we're not allowed out.



And not only asked us to come out and play, but planned for us to play.  It's not like they would be waiting until startex to plan the flex and the events.  :


----------



## geo (26 Jan 2007)

Again... the cash crunch must have been building up for a long time
is this an issue where the fleet had overlooked the dwindling $$$ resources or something like DND not responding to CF/ Fleet requests for extra cash?

Going to the press is, regardless, hanging out your dirty laundry for all to see AND, someone is going to pay in the end...

Look out/look out!


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (26 Jan 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Again... the cash crunch must have been building up for a long time
> is this an issue where the fleet had overlooked the dwindling $$$ resources or something like DND not responding to CF/ Fleet requests for extra cash?
> 
> Going to the press is, regardless, hanging out your dirty laundry for all to see AND, someone is going to pay in the end...
> ...



Well as Mich pointed out this is something that has been planned for some time so what do you think??
Let's just say that other priorities are driving the agenda and they aren't the Navy's. 
The Press are asking us about this stuff and then drawing conclusions. There are individuals who have been in the same briefings that I've been in who are not shy about calling the Press. 
It's not right but whatcha gonna do??


----------



## Journeyman (27 Jan 2007)

airmich said:
			
		

> *And not only asked us to come out and play, but planned for us to play. *


...and from where I'm sitting, overlooking the Halifax Naval Yard, there are several German and US Navy ships already here.


From the news article cited, 


> Defence analyst Steve Staples suggested the navy may be playing politics to get more money in the next budget. "I think they're playing a dangerous game by trying to embarrass the government," said *Staples, with the Ottawa-based Rideau Institute*.


Staples, and his "expertise," is usually associated with The Polaris Institute. Any idea who/what the Rideau Institute is?

Googling "Rideau Institute," I get only press soundbites that Staples is still merely recycling his same opinions with this "Rideau" group, 
...which apparently lost its charity status in 20011 and was dissolved by Corporations Canada for failing to file requisite documents in 20052 

Never heard of them.


-------------------------
1. Canada Customs & Revenue Agency, _Revocation of Registration of Charities_. http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2001/20010804/html/commis-e.html
2. Corporations Canada, _Notice of Decision to Dissolve (CCA) - List 2_. http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/cd-dgc.nsf/en/cs02804e.html


----------



## rmacqueen (27 Jan 2007)

These are things that just came out of the blue but would have been budgeted for a year or so ago.  The fact that they are out of money, IMO, warrants an intense audit of funds to find out where the money that would have been allotted to these deployments has gone.  DND needs to determine if mismanagement or bad budgeting is responsible and hold those whose job it is to oversee these funds responsible.


----------



## trigger324 (28 Jan 2007)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ...and from where I'm sitting, overlooking the Halifax Naval Yard, there are several German and US Navy ships already here.
> 
> 
> there's only one of each tied up there.


----------



## Journeyman (28 Jan 2007)

trigger324 said:
			
		

> > ...and from where I'm sitting, overlooking the Halifax Naval Yard, there are several German and US Navy ships already here.
> 
> 
> there's only one of each tied up there.



Several (sev·er·al) – _adjective_ 1. being more than one, but fewer than many, in number or kind -- as in, "There were _several_ ships already here, one German and one American." Had I been writing an intelligence report for the motherland, I would have been more precise, in both grammar and detail.

But thanks for playing along.  :


----------



## trigger324 (28 Jan 2007)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> there's only one of each tied up there.
> 
> Several (sev·er·al) – _adjective_ 1. being more than one, but fewer than many, in number or kind -- as in, "There were _several_ ships already here, one German and one American." Had I been writing an intelligence report for the motherland, I would have been more precise, in both grammar and detail.
> 
> But thanks for playing along.  :



that's what i was thinking  :


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Jan 2007)

No need to be ignorant trigger your point was made and all it is is semantics....


----------



## navymich (29 Jan 2007)

Okay folks, dig deep in your pockets, we need more....



> R 291651Z JAN 07
> FM NAVRESHQ QUEBEC
> TO NAVRESGEN
> ZEN/FDU SHEARWATER
> ...


----------

