# A Naval Disaster- article May 30/ 07



## Ex-Dragoon (30 May 2007)

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=65d777bd-b70a-4c79-944b-ce0266052f8e



> *A naval disaster*
> 
> If any country needs a strong navy, it's Canada. But our decrepit fleet patrols three enormous coastlines with grossly inadequate funding
> 
> ...



Although I am not sure why he says 





> there appears to be no plan for refitting frigates that need refitting


 as FELEX has been paid for.


----------



## aesop081 (30 May 2007)

How many cuts did FELEX suffer.....what is the difference between the project now and the project in its original form ?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 May 2007)

From the briefs we have been given FELEX will be all 12 CPFs with no changes. We shall see...


----------



## aesop081 (30 May 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> From the briefs we have been given FELEX will be all 12 CPFs with no changes. We shall see...



I thought i had read somewhere that the power generation and distribution system upgrade portion of FELEX had been cut.  Thats the kind of things i was thinking of.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 May 2007)

Maybe it has but the brief we has back in Feb never mentioned anything like that at all, the Cdr giving it said it was still going on strong.


----------



## Greymatters (30 May 2007)

Good read!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 May 2007)

Ex,
I modified the thread title cause ya scared the bejeepers out of me....I thought "Oh no, what now?"


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 May 2007)

NP Bruce....appreciate the edit, now go and change your undies


----------



## Mike Baker (30 May 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> Good read!


+1. Here is one of the few times I agree with the media.


----------



## aesop081 (30 May 2007)

Mike Baker said:
			
		

> +1. Here is one of the few times I agree with the media.



It was not written by a journalist


----------



## Mike Baker (30 May 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It was not written by a journalist


But it is a form of media. I learned that in English class


----------



## aesop081 (30 May 2007)

Mike Baker said:
			
		

> But it is a form of media. I learned that in English class



 :


----------



## Greymatters (30 May 2007)

Double that...   : :


----------



## navymich (30 May 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Ex,
> I modified the thread title cause ya scared the bejeepers out of me....I thought "Oh no, what now?"



Ditto!  Thank you Bruce, my heart was in my throat for a bit, even with the modification.  All I centered on was Naval disaster and the date.


----------



## Loachman (31 May 2007)

In a way, he's right - it is an Ottawa Citizen article, after all.

And if one did not look at the byline, and recognize the name...

Mike Baker: see who Colin Kenny is, if you don't know.


----------



## niner domestic (31 May 2007)

Ok.. thanks Bruce...now I can get my heart started again.  Two kids in Navy..double the heart stopping effect.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (1 Jun 2007)

> In Part 2 of this series I will take a more detailed look at those components of our navy that are getting short shrift -- think frigates, think destroyers, think submarines, think having to steal equipment from other ships to go to sea



This is part 2.

*We needed to start buying new ships years ago*
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=84989ebc-aaed-4f59-a3b9-b8e0c5717203


> *Colin Kenny, Citizen Special  Published: Thursday, May 31, 2007*
> 
> Canada's ports serve as gateways to more than 100 economies across the world. Twenty per cent of our trade with the United States goes by sea. Ninety-seven per cent of Canada's exports to all other countries flow across ocean trade routes.
> 
> ...


----------



## ChrisG (1 Jun 2007)

Is it just me or is the Canadian Government East Coast oriented.  I know that most of the fisheries problems that involve other nations seem to occur in the East,  however it seems to me that at least 50% of, say,  the drug trafficking threat is on the West coast and that most of the countries from which we could perceive a naval threat are in the Pacific.  I don't know exactly how many ships we can field on the West Coast tomorrow morning but if it is in the order of two or three it seems incredibly inadequate.


----------



## Greymatters (1 Jun 2007)

Unfortunately, unless you are an elected official, or a member of the senate, or a high-ranking officer, or at least a credible academic, your opinion doesnt count for much among the powers that be...


----------



## jollyjacktar (1 Jun 2007)

A very good read, I cannot disagree with most of what is said.   The point about spare parts being no longer available for some of the ships is so very true.  In the engineering world many of the companies who produced the gear for the Tankers for example have been out of business for 20 or so years.  It can be a nightmare trying to find gear that will work as replacement parts when something goes down for good.  But honestly I don't think that the powers that be will do much of anything until it is almost too late, and even then I am not sure.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (8 Jun 2007)

Who needs a navy? Canada does
The nation's sovereignty is at risk if our fleet is not upgraded, and soon
  
Sen. Colin Kenny 
Special to Times Colonist 


Friday, June 08, 2007


At the end of the Second World War it was almost impossible to find a Canadian who didn't understand the importance of our navy. Six decades later, it is difficult to find a Canadian who does.

The ships go out. The ships come back. What was that all about? No guns or torpedoes were fired; what were they doing out there? And those ships are expensive. They're always getting refitted. Who needs them?

We do, and we're going to for a long time. Which is becoming a problem, because the politicians who control Canada's purse strings are neglecting our navy.

What kind of country needs a strong navy?

How about Canada, which has one of the longest coastlines in the world, with an economy largely built around exports, a high percentage of which are shipped by sea -- even to the United States.

Canada's ports are gateways to more than 100 economies. Twenty per cent of our trade with the United States goes by sea. Ninety-seven per cent of Canada's exports to all other countries travel over ocean trade routes.

Many of Canada's frontier oil reserves are offshore, and our fisheries still generate more than $4 billion in export income annually.

How about Canada, a country big enough to play a significant role in world politics, but not big enough to do that unless it makes major contributions to its alliances and joint activities, such as NATO naval exercises and missions.

Navies can protect coastlines and littoral waters. Navies can act in concert with like-minded countries to protect shipping lanes threatened by pirates or hostile states. Navies can blockade renegade states.

Well-equipped navies can also transport troops and military equipment over long distances. For land operations, it is usually less expensive to transport troops and equipment by ship than it is to fly them in.

Navies often offer the best means of projecting power against a hostile country -- the presence of an aircraft carrier surrounded by support vessels and loaded with fighter planes can convince a hostile country to change its behaviour. Canada doesn't have an aircraft carrier, but it has frigates and destroyers that have helped protect allies' aircraft carriers.

Canadians have a vested interest in protecting our coasts and having a presence on the high seas. Canada must have a robust navy to protect territory and interests abroad, and also to help forge relationships with like-minded countries.

But that navy, which is an afterthought to most Canadians, is beginning to disintegrate.

Only frigates and destroyers are large enough to allow our navy to operate in Canada's most severe sea conditions. Beyond our waters, frigates and destroyers are the basic building blocks of the navies of medium-sized countries like Canada.

To refit and replace such ships on a timely basis requires starting years in advance.

Our three destroyers will rust out by 2012, when they will be 40 years old. There are no approved plans to replace these destroyers. Such plans would flow from an overall defence-capability plan. That has been due for more than a year, but the government seems to have shunted it aside as it focuses on surviving Afghanistan.

If Canada were to purchase destroyers from other countries, the ships would have to be reconfigured to fit into Canadian operational systems.

Canada has 12 frigates. They were commissioned between 1992 and 1996, which means the early ones are now due for mid-life refits, and the later ones soon will be. These ships need to be modernized.

If something isn't initiated soon, a future government is going to find itself without a frigate fleet. Naval sources predict the possibility of a future gap of several years without these essential vessels if re-ordering is not done immediately.

Submarines excel at defending, surveillance and intelligence gathering. Even with modern technology, submarines are difficult to detect. The mere presence of submarines defending Canada's coasts is a deterrent to potentially hostile vessels.

Canada's four submarines, purchased from the British nine years ago, are being refitted so they can fire Canadian-designed torpedoes. By 2009, three should be ready. A fourth -- the Chicoutimi -- is supposed to gain this capacity at some later date. There will need to be orders in place to replace these subs by 2015, or Canada will lose its submarine capacity.

Canadian naval vessels are so old that in many cases spare parts are no longer available. Many ships are in such a poor state that every time one puts to sea, the navy must invest time and energy transferring parts from other ships remaining in port.

The political consideration is that there is no immediate political payoff in rebuilding Canada's navy. The benefits would accrue to Canadians long after the current government is gone.

Whatever the reason, Canadians should be paying attention. A maritime nation without a navy is like a king not wearing any clothes: sovereignty undressed.

Sen. Colin Kenny is chairman of the standing Senate committee on national security and defence.

© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2007


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (8 Jun 2007)

> The minister of defence is an army man. The chief of the defence staff is an army man, and so is his vice-chief. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that government military purchases announced over the past year are so army-oriented.



Frankly, all the Senator's arguments are blown out of the water by this statement.  In attacking the Army, currently _fighting_ in Afghanistan he's demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of the operational realities and the fiscal constraints facing the CF today.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (8 Jun 2007)

No one has ever questioned the fact that the Army is engaged in Afghanistan and needs to be maintained. What he was trying to do I believe was to prod the government to start paying attention to the Air Force and the Navy before its too late.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (8 Jun 2007)

Oh, I know what his objective was/is - and I couldn't agree more.  However, twice - in both parts of his original article - he insinuates that there's an alternative, service-oriented _bias_ at work.

In a perfect world, the CF would be resourced sufficiently to cover all our pressing requirements.  However, the Canadian public hasn't seen fit to pressure our politicians to double our defence budget (as Kenny has previously called for), so we have to make some choices.  It just so happens that the Army's carrying the burden of operations _right now_, hence the resourcing priority. In previous years, for example, I seem to recall a barrage of purchases in support of the CF-18 fleet post-Kosovo.  No one complained of bias then...

Accusations against the CDS, VCDS and others hardly add to Kenny's arguments and makes me question his grasp on reality.


----------



## Cloud Cover (13 Jun 2007)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Oh, I know what his objective was/is - and I couldn't agree more.  However, twice - in both parts of his original article - he insinuates that there's an alternative, service-oriented _bias_ at work.



I dont think anyone can prove one way or the other if there has been any bias in play within DND regarding these matters, but Kenney himself is clearly infatuated with ships and aircraft. Things like shovels and grenades he doesn't see any value in -- maybe they should have let him fo to Afghanisatn for a visit. [or did they ever let him in after all?]   



> In a perfect world, the CF would be resourced sufficiently to cover all our pressing requirements.  However, the Canadian public hasn't seen fit to pressure our politicians to double our defence budget (as Kenny has previously called for), so we have to make some choices.  It just so happens that the Army's carrying the burden of operations _right now_, hence the resourcing priority. In previous years, for example, I seem to recall a barrage of purchases in support of the CF-18 fleet post-Kosovo.  No one complained of bias then...



I agree with this, however there is a limit to neglect with ships and submarines before the vessels are permanently damaged. 



> Accusations against the CDS, VCDS and others hardly add to Kenny's arguments and makes me question his grasp on reality.



He's toeing the liberal party line on assaulting the CDS. He admired Hillier when Martin was in power.

Overall, Kenney is an ass, but a well meaning one. Taking the good with the bad, he has highlighted some serious problems that need to be addressed or we risk losing more essential capabilities that may be required for next conflict, wherever that may be, and in whatever environment ...


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (20 Jun 2007)

My primary issues are as follows:
1)  His timing is very bad.  Why didn't he rise these op-ed's scathing the Federal Government while the Liberals were in power as they were the ones who allowed the rust-out, and why does he not give credit where credit is due for the funds commitments the Tories have made.
2)  He talks in platitudes and never uses hard numbers.  If you want to sell me anything, give me a price tag.
3)  He gives zero credit the army and the prioritization that SHOULD be going to the army given the commitment his party provided to the people of Afghanistan.

Candidly given what I know of the man, I find his comments more than disappointing.

The one positive caveat I will add is that I had emailed Sen Kenney a couple of years ago re: a plan as to how the Armed Forces needed to be marketed to Canadians in order to get buy-in for additional funding.  He not only took the advice and I believe forwarded it, but wrote me a very kind note as well.

Hopefully, he'll do better (provide more honesty and less partisanship) next time.


Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Jun 2007)

Matthew,
  I believe his intent was to point out that the Navy and Air Force needs fixing up too not just the Army. I don't believe it was a slight at all. It takes a lot longer to get ships then it does LAVs.


----------

