# Was Admiral Robertson that bad at raising the Navy's profile?



## FSTO (29 Jan 2009)

According to some he was:

http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2009/01/29/will-mcfadden-s-appointment-stop-the-navy-s-slide-into-obscurity.aspx

In his defence it was pretty tough to compete with the likes of General Hillier and the high profile of the mission in A-Stan. 

But our job is to protect the sea-lanes of communication, project and protect Canadian interests abroad and support forces ashore. These are all jobs that are done over the horizon and out of sight of all Canadians. So what can the new CMS do to raise our profile?


----------



## Harley Sailor (29 Jan 2009)

Some of us in the Navy have been saying that for a few years now.  Everything is going to support the "A-Stan" and the rest of us are being loft out.  That includes money, recurits, and yes publicity.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (30 Jan 2009)

The Afghanistan profile is certainly a distraction in terms of public perception as far as the navy is concerned.

However, I beleive that with the right PR campaign, or rather any PR campaign to begin with, this can be turned around pretty fast.  The navy has several advantages to recruitment if used properly.  First of all, the idea of being a combat soldier to Canadians, unfortunately, is still a bit taboo.  People are still being ignorantly hard headed about our supposed role as peacekeepers.  As aggrevating as this is, the navy can exploit this as an advantage.  In the Navy, you are deployed primarily in defensive operations.  Heck, even the more aggressive missions like blockades and boarding can be spun in a defensive sort of way.

The other advantage, and this I beleive is powerful... Eye candy.  We're damn sexy!  Im being serious.  I was in the army for 14 years prior to switching to the navy.  As one who beleives in increasing the CF profile overall I was not shy about wearing my uniform in public, on the way to or from work ect...  When I started wearing the navy uniform, heads started turning fast.  Im not talking about NCDs either.  The DEU types.  They look impressive and they are rare.  People are getting used to seeing CADPAT, its on TV alot afterall, but nobody is used to seeing the naval uniform, unless you are in Halifax or Victoria of course.  I have people come up to me all the time and ask me questions.  Half the time they think I work for a cruise line, which is bothersome to say the least, but at least they are asking and as a result walking away with just a tiny bit more information then they had before.  I have successfully recruited 2 officers into my unit just by being visible.

We as individual members can increase our profile just by being out there and participating in society.

Certainly the CMS can also do this on a much larger scale.  I firmly beleive that if we had an effective PR campaign we would be able to attract and recruit more then enough people to fill our spots.  We have lots of inherent advantages, we just need to make use of them.


----------



## Journeyman (30 Jan 2009)

Yes, the fact that a goodly portion of us are involved in fighting a war in a land-locked country kind of... stacks the deck. 

But in no particular order......

Some of us are very aware that the Navy has been pretty much constantly busy, especially on the other side of the Med (or this side, if you're Esquimalt). When something happens in the Persian Gulf, or a piracy issue off of Somalia, it makes _one_ press release. Start acting like sailors of old -- draw & quarter a PAffO or two, dammit!!

The last poster, and one mod, both "claim" to be navy; yet one has an Arty avatar, and the other one, Dragoons. Perhaps 'Navy pride' starts at home?

Finally, accept that youngin's tend to join for "the excitement." A land-based war is "game on" -- that's where the 'kids' are most likely to go, regardless of what any CMS says.


Just some thoughts -- I'm out of the Navy threads now, and back in _my lane_.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (30 Jan 2009)

I am indeed in the navy, I just become a MARS officer.  Though I spent the first 14 years of my career in the army as an NCM and I got my start with the artillery.  I use it as my avatar out of nostalgia or sentimental value.  Besides, I hardly need to promote the CF or the Navy on the navy.ca forums, something tells me you all are very aware of our navy and what it can do.  My mission is not with the choir, rather with the general public at large!


----------



## Journeyman (30 Jan 2009)

Fair enough; as said, just some random thoughts.

And as a lead preacher of 'stay in your lane,' ;D  ..... the Navy isn't my forte -- so I'll back away.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (30 Jan 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Fair enough; as said, just some random thoughts.
> 
> And as a lead preacher of 'stay in your lane,' ;D  ..... the Navy isn't my forte -- so I'll back away.



meh, I am inclined to preach "to hell with lanes"  
On another note, in the interests of the spirit of this thread, I suggest you consider a VOT to a navy trade.  Every day in the navy is like xmas compared to the army  ;D


----------



## Journeyman (30 Jan 2009)

Oh, I'm "familiar" with the Navy

PM inbound  (where is that slave being lashed 'smiley'?)


----------



## geo (30 Jan 2009)

The only problem I can see with the Admiral is that he didn't get very far pushing for the new AORs or the super duper JSS ships the Army/Navy/Air needs for the next 40 some years.

Lotta talk for a while about the JSS project until the treasury board got "sticker shock" .... and then NOTHING!
The current AORs are withering away, the Tribals are withering away....

So.... we're going to charter ships & drag out the retirement age of the current batch of Tribals & AORs by XX years - then what ???

General Leslie is visible, you see him, you hear him.....  from the little I have seen of him - can't say quite so much about Admiral Robertson....


----------



## PMedMoe (30 Jan 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> PM inbound  (where is that slave being lashed 'smiley'?)



Off topic:  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 ;D


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Jan 2009)

> The last poster, and one mod, both "claim" to be navy; yet one has an Arty avatar, and the other one, Dragoons. Perhaps 'Navy pride' starts at home?



There is no _claim_ involved if you looked hard enough you will find my DND email. :

As for using the Dragoons avatar they say you never forget your first regiment and whether for good or for ill the RCDs shaped me into the servicemember I am today and its my way to pay homage to my former regiment. Read my posts and they do nothing but advocate the naval point of view.



> or the super duper JSS ships the Army/Navy/Air needs for the next 40 some years.


A good percentage of us are happy the JSS never went any farther then it did. We need AORs, we need AAD/C&C platforms, we need amphibs. We don't need a James Bond style monstrosity that can do all of those capabilities and none of them to the point where we need them to be accomplished.


----------



## geo (30 Jan 2009)

Ex - not arguing with you about that... but once the gov't had recognized the impossibility of doing the big ship (due to big bucks), shouldn't we have brought out the plans for a good ole AOR replacement & ones for AAD/C&C platforms.

TO me, the Navy has been surprisingly quiet about what it's going to do next  now that the JSS concept doesn't fly.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Jan 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> Ex - not arguing with you about that... but once the gov't had recognized the impossibility of doing the big ship (due to big bucks), shouldn't we have brought out the plans for a good ole AOR replacement & ones for AAD/C&C platforms.
> 
> TO me, the Navy has been surprisingly quiet about what it's going to do next  now that the JSS concept doesn't fly.



They are still examining their options. If you look at the Flag Officer list that Mark submitted, you will notice they put a Commodore in charge of the SCSC/DRP (you chose the acroynm flavour of the day). Usually its been a Captain(N), so I am hoping with the higher pay grade in charge the project will pick up steam.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Jan 2009)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> They are still examining their options. If you look at the Flag Officer list that Mark submitted, you will notice they put a Commodore in charge of the SCSC/DRP (you chose the acroynm flavour of the day). Usually its been a Captain(N), so I am hoping with the higher pay grade in charge the project will pick up steam.



Until there's a shipbulding strategy, AOR, SCSC and AOPS are all grounded; that's the thread that sets everything else in roder.  I suspect having a Flag officer working the issue will help get all the shipbuilding moving again, not only SCSC.


----------



## Sub_Guy (30 Jan 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> TO me, the Navy has been surprisingly quiet about what it's going to do next  now that the JSS concept doesn't fly.



They are sitting behind closed doors trying to figure out how to break it to the people of Canada that they are going to by from another country....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Jan 2009)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> They are sitting behind closed doors trying to figure out how to break it to the people of Canada that they are going to by from another country....



If it gets us quality warships in the water I have no issues with buying overseas.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (30 Jan 2009)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> If it gets us quality warships in the water I have no issues with buying overseas.



Agreed, I just hope we get ships period at this point.  I am worried with the economic slowdown that any hopes of proceeding with these types of projects will be scraped.  Something tells me the voters wont be sorry to see them go.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Jan 2009)

There's a vocal pro-shipbuilding lobby on both coasts; and there is willpower to keep SCSC and JSS (or whatever support capabiltiy it morphs into) advancing.  AOPS has political will behind it as well.

Time is getting short though, as the AORs are aging, as are the DDGs.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (30 Jan 2009)

I hope you are right, what is SCSC?  Thats the first ive seen that term before.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Jan 2009)

> as are the DDGs.


you mean the DDHs....



> what is SCSC


its been discussed here before but its _Single Class Surface Combatant_


----------



## ltmaverick25 (30 Jan 2009)

Would it be correct to assume that is an eventual replacement to the CPF?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Jan 2009)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> Would it be correct to assume that is an eventual replacement to the CPF?



and 280s

Its been discussed here before if you search around.....


----------



## ltmaverick25 (30 Jan 2009)

I will be sure to search around later tonight when I am not at work, but for now, your responces told me what I wanted to know


----------



## dapaterson (30 Jan 2009)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> you mean the DDHs....
> its been discussed here before but its _Single Class Surface Combatant_



I'ev always seen it as DDH, but the nice "Here are our ships" poster the Navy put out a number of years ago clearly labels them as DDG.  PAffOs strike again...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Jan 2009)

My ballcaps from the Athabaskan and Iroquois has them as DDH...any official correspondences from either ship lists them as DDH...Janes has them as DDH....for some reason the navy of the west has Algonquin as a DDG(go figure). If we had Tomahawks then I could see us as DDGs


----------



## Nfld Sapper (30 Jan 2009)

Didn't think we had any DDG - Guided Missile Destroyer 

 ;D


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Jan 2009)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Didn't think we had any DDG - Guided Missile Destroyer
> 
> ;D



You don't think the SM2 is a guided missile?


----------



## ltmaverick25 (30 Jan 2009)

He is probably thinking about AEGIS


----------



## Nfld Sapper (30 Jan 2009)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> You don't think the SM2 is a guided missile?



Never meant it like that Ex.

Found this tidbit on wiki:

Algonquin completed a refit known as the Tribal Class Update and Modernization Project (TRUMP) on 11 October 1991. At this time her classification changed from Destroyer Helicopter (DDH) to Destroyer Guided Missile (DDG).


But we classify DDG as Area Air Defence Destroyer (according to this page)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Jan 2009)

Understandable NS...when you have so many sources saying different classifications its easy to say one or the other.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (30 Jan 2009)

True that Ex-D and the last time I was at HM Dockyard the ball caps I saw used DDH .....


----------



## ltmaverick25 (30 Jan 2009)

Nevermind im a few posts behind it seems!


----------



## geo (30 Jan 2009)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> They are sitting behind closed doors trying to figure out how to break it to the people of Canada that they are going to by from another country....


If dawdling around till the cows come home AND our ships are stuck in port yearround, then I would propose that buying partly or fully abroad is not necessarily a bad idea.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (30 Jan 2009)

That is only half the problem though.  Even if we did get all these new ships tomorrow, it would only exacerbate the manning situation.  We need more sailors and without more, the ones we have will keep burning out and leaving and more ships will be stuck alongside.

I hope with the new change in command we will get new energy into the manning situation in addition to the new ships.


----------



## geo (30 Jan 2009)

maverick...
we need new ships to replace the old ones... but we don't want em all at the same time.
we need new ships to gradualy replace the ships we currently have....one by one... over a long period of time.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (30 Jan 2009)

No arguments there, but a steady shipbuilding industry like that would make far too much sence for the Canadian tax payer or politician to go along with..


----------



## Galahad (30 Jan 2009)

The only reason why long term projects like that are so difficult is that they are beyond the terms of service of the politicians. If there was only one party in power continuously for, say, twenty years or more, it would be a lot easier to reach long terms goals such as that.

As it stands now, I'm hoping to do my part about the personnel shortage, signing up as a marine systems engineer. Maybe with any luck I could be able to help design our next generation of ships, I was thinking about naval architecture before deciding on the Navy, so it would be like a dream come true for me.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (30 Jan 2009)

Glad to hear, good luck with the app, let us know how it goes.


----------



## M Feetham (6 Feb 2009)

I have to agree with what some of the other posters are saying, we need to focus on getting more people into the navy before we get the new ships, if you can't staff them they are useless. I also agree that if you mention the fact that the navy is a little more comfortable, ie. hot food, hot shower, warm bed a few more young men and women may be interested. On that note though, you have to be careful because with the quality of recruit that is starting to come thru, it is getting difficult to find the hardworking people we need. Most of them are smart, but they really don't want to work any harder that they absolutely have to. What we need is a couple of really high profile incidents with pirates off the coast of Africa to push us to the front page of the news. 
Marc


----------



## geo (6 Feb 2009)

You have to have the ships ready for when the troops get there.... else they won't have anything to work with.
You can't wait 5 or 10 years before you start the process..... from concepts to design to laying of the keel to delivery of new ships takes a long, long time


----------



## ltmaverick25 (6 Feb 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> You have to have the ships ready for when the troops get there.... else they won't have anything to work with.
> You can't wait 5 or 10 years before you start the process..... from concepts to design to laying of the keel to delivery of new ships takes a long, long time



I agree with you Geo, but with that said, we do have ships available right now that are desperate for more sailors.  At the end of the day, a heavy and successful recruiting campaign needs to take place effective immediately.  Building new ships also has to move beyond the governments expressed desire to action on the ground, because it does indeed take time.  Im certain we can and should do both at the same time!


----------



## geo (6 Feb 2009)

Are the present suite of ships undermaned... yes
do we need more hands on board ... yes

However - do we decide to "make do" with things like our AORs (Preserver/Protecteur) for another 10 years and only then resume discussinos on maybe replacing the ships at that time ?

Do we maintain status quo for the destroyers, that are +/- at the end of their lifespan, until the new hands are enrolled & trained for another 10 years and only then resume discussinos on maybe replacing the ships at that time ?

You must do both things at the same time.  You can't just say we are shortstaffed and sit idle for another 5 to 10 years..... you do that, you might as well contract our maritime security to the US, Russian or Chinese navy


----------



## ltmaverick25 (6 Feb 2009)

Thats basically what I just said.  We need to do both simultaneously.  When you see sailors post here saying "but we cant even man our existing ships as it is" I dont think they mean to say, lets not build any new ships until we can.  I think they are just expressing their frustration towards a growing problem in the Navy that does not appear to be getting addressed.  You would be hard pressed to find any of us not wanting new toys to play with  ;D


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (6 Feb 2009)

What we need to decide is what new toys we need for the navy.


----------



## Lard of the Dance (13 Feb 2009)

After reading some of the posts, I must say no, he didn't do a bad job. The Navy's profile is where it belongs. How can people be crying for ship's when on any given day you'll find several of the ships tied up along side. The Navy's dilema with personel shortages is not a profile problem, it's a systematic problem. Will it ever be addressed? To quote a friend "magic 8 ball says outlook not so good" So I'll satnd behind what I say, the Navy's profile is not high because it does not have the need to be, and as for the personel shortages, that mess is in their own front yard.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Feb 2009)

Lard of the Dance said:
			
		

> After reading some of the posts, I must say no, he didn't do a bad job.


Really ? You based this on reading 'some posts'? Have you served in this mans command?


> The Navy's profile is where it belongs. How can people be crying for ship's when on any given day you'll find several of the ships tied up along side.


There is a difference of ships being tied up due to maintenance and personnel issues and wanting ships that are up to date.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Feb 2009)

The most important job of the three service commanders (CMS, CLS and CAS) is to ensure the future readiness of their command.  That means planning for people - getting them the experience and training they will require for the future, and planning for equipment - launching long-term acquisition programs to make sure the platforms requried in the future will be available.

This makes it awkward, at times to evaluate the stewardship of senior leaders - their key impacts will not be felt for a decade or more after their tenure.

So the current service commanders have to focus on platform replacements - you can't go to Wal-Mart and buy a bulk pack of frigates.  Lead times for a warship are years at best, so if the DDHs expire in 2015 (I do not know the actual plan), we're behind the power curve to have a replacement available in time.  Those new ships will need crews; if we lack sufficient PO2s today, those new ships will lack CPO2s in 2015.

The three environmental chiefs often get caught in "today" issues.  Those are important, and require resolution.  But ideally their time should be spent steering a course towards the far horizon, with their subordinates making minor course corrections to avoid local obstacles.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (13 Feb 2009)

Lard of the Dance said:
			
		

> After reading some of the posts, I must say no, he didn't do a bad job. The Navy's profile is where it belongs. How can people be crying for ship's when on any given day you'll find several of the ships tied up along side. The Navy's dilema with personel shortages is not a profile problem, it's a systematic problem. Will it ever be addressed? To quote a friend "magic 8 ball says outlook not so good" So I'll satnd behind what I say, the Navy's profile is not high because it does not have the need to be, and as for the personel shortages, that mess is in their own front yard.



This is Canada, if you dont have a high profile you get forgotten and dismantled.  So does the Navy need a high profile?  Absolutely.  We arent in direct action combat like the army is right now, and we havent lost a sailor to combat in a long time thankfully, but that does not mean that the work the Navy does is not important.  Escorting food to the hungry, interdicting terrorists at sea (have you seen the workload in this area alone the Navy carried in recent years?), fisheries and drug patrols, sovereignty missions...

Some of those tasks may not be as sexy as kicking down a door and going in with guns blazing, but they are just as important, if not more so in the long term strategic view of our nations security.

Canada does not have a maritime identity outside of the maritime provinces.  Since the bulk of our population lies in the rest of the country that poses massive recruiting challenges.  A high profile is required to offset this.

The massive recruiting challenges, and the huge cutbacks of the 90s have contributed to huge attrition problems too.  We are losing too many guys out the back door because they are getting burnt out at sea.  Why?  Because even during routine peacetime sailors are working damn hard.  The Navy is operational all year round, every year, no matter what.   After breaking your ass like that, getting burnt out, and getting little to no recognition by your country its no wonder that alot of these guys are inspired to quit.  Yes, the Navy DOES need a higher public profile...


----------



## geo (13 Feb 2009)

personnel shortage should sort itself out as new people come in and serving members have second thoughts about leaving for greener pastures on civy street.  Amaazing what a recession/depression can do to staffing.... budget permiting


----------



## CountDC (13 Feb 2009)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> They are sitting behind closed doors trying to figure out how to break it to the people of Canada that they are going to by from another country....



they are busily reworking the proposal, taking a look to see what can be changed in order for at least one of the competitors be able to submit a good bid.  One item they are looking at is what work can be cut from the proposal and done by DND staff instead of as part of the contract.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (13 Feb 2009)

CountDC said:
			
		

> they are busily reworking the proposal, taking a look to see what can be changed in order for at least one of the competitors be able to submit a good bid.  One item they are looking at is what work can be cut from the proposal and done by DND staff instead of as part of the contract.



Any word on an ETA for the decision?


----------



## Navy_Blue (13 Feb 2009)

> After reading some of the posts, I must say no, he didn't do a bad job. The Navy's profile is where it belongs. How can people be crying for ship's when on any given day you'll find several of the ships tied up along side.



I can't think of any ship on the east coast tied up because of manning.  We are making do with what we have I think for the most part.  As a ship goes into a SWP or an EDWP the able bodies in the past (still to a point now) are slowly being burned out with attach postings and critical manning messages.  The Commador has told us the ships are going to have to learn to make do but I can't see how  ???  Another menacing problem is our complete lack of maintenance personnel in FMF Cape Scott.  If you can't maintain it they wont leave the wall either.  Those people by the way are civies.


----------



## CountDC (17 Feb 2009)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> Any word on an ETA for the decision?



Last I heard they were hoping to put it back out for tender before the change of command with the new specs.  Of course this means they have to go through the bid process again.  Hopefully they would get a good bite with the new specs so some real work can be done.  I was told that this is actually verily normal with such large projects just that it normally doesn't get all the press coverage.


----------



## Lard of the Dance (19 Feb 2009)

Yes Ex-Dragoon, I was under his command.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Feb 2009)

Lard of the Dance said:
			
		

> Yes Ex-Dragoon, I was under his command.



Just curious from your post it looked like you were basing your view on him based on the posts in this thread.


----------



## Sub_Guy (20 Feb 2009)

CountDC said:
			
		

> they are busily reworking the proposal, taking a look to see what can be changed in order for at least one of the competitors be able to submit a good bid.  One item they are looking at is what work can be cut from the proposal and done by DND staff instead of as part of the contract.



Super, so it will be close to a decade before we see any new ships.  I seriously hope they have kicked the JSS idea to the curb, because if they did you would think the contract would be cheaper and not need any reworking to allow for our shoddy shipyards to bid.  

It sill sounds like they want the JSS Swiss army knife ship, when we need dedicated tankers!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Feb 2009)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Super, so it will be close to a decade before we see any new ships.  I seriously hope they have kicked the JSS idea to the curb, because if they did you would think the contract would be cheaper and not need any reworking to allow for our shoddy shipyards to bid.
> 
> It sill sounds like they want the JSS Swiss army knife ship, when we need dedicated tankers!



I have to wonder if the Navy is being pressured by other elements to have some sort of a sealift capability no matter the cost?


----------



## CountDC (20 Feb 2009)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I have to wonder if the Navy is being pressured by other elements to have some sort of a sealift capability no matter the cost?



I would wager the pressure is not just from the other elements but is also from above and internal as the more we can do the more value we have.

edit: forgot - shouldn't the subject read IS instead of WAS - the man is still here for another 4 months.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Feb 2009)

But there is a point were too much capability makes a platform uneffective.


----------



## CountDC (20 Feb 2009)

true  and as I am not hard sea, merely a tourist,  I could be way out on this.  From the little I have read and the few officers I have talked to this seems a good plan.  It does not appear to be taking the platform over the line - merely bringing it the next stage of usefullness.  Haven't heard anyone here giving a negative to it yet.  Mind you I also think for some it is the "new toy syndrome" that is driving them and they are hoping to be the first to Captain one.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Feb 2009)

Direction for the Swiss Army knife ship came from the previous CDS, and has been further refined by the CF Capability Development Board.

Scope creep is always a concern in this sort of thing; my real fear is that so many additional requirements have been added on that to fit within resources available things will be cut - so key naval sustainment capabilities could end up cut or reduced to keep some of the other nice-to-haves.


----------



## geo (20 Feb 2009)

Must haves, Should haves & Could (nice to ) haves.

Let's remember to stand on our priorities..... it would be real silly & short sighted to drop some Must haves - in order to have some of the Could haves


----------

