Author Topic: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR  (Read 74432 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services pai
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 266,372
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,198
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - all Destroyers and 1 x AOR
« Reply #25 on: September 20, 2014, 17:21:20 »
Unfortunately yes thats true, its just my opinion. If they listened to people actually doing the job we might be in better stead right now, just my opinion.


And what would make you stand out as deserving of that dubious honour, when no-one, Federal or Provincial, no matter the job, gets a say as the boots on the ground? Input from the peons is frowned upon, as the policy makers would be exposed as frauds. ;)
Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #26 on: September 20, 2014, 19:05:50 »
Actually, they did ask our opinions, once.  We had a dream team from the puzzle palace sail with us for a week and watch what the tanker did at sea with the fleet.  The then gave a presentation to all three messes on what the then proposed tanker replacement was going to be.  The asked us what we liked in the design, what worked for us and what didn't.  Then, they said the intent was to build 4 and have them in the water for 2005 with 2 on each coast.  Then, 9/11 happened and it all went pear shaped and we got squat.  Guess they didn't like our input.   :nod:


Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 103,489
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,918
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #27 on: September 20, 2014, 19:57:47 »
While this looks like a big hit to the RCN capability wise, at least on paper, the reality is that these ships were at the end of their service-life and need to be replaced.  We can go on about the ifs, ands or buts of why we don't have replacements yet but realistically none of that matters at this point.  The fact is, the present government has a plan to replace our ships, it also has a plan to develop a ship-building industry which will give us strategic capacity. 

I agree with Edward and I think this is a very good move by the government and the RCN.  I anxiously await seeing the first keel cut at both Seaspan and Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax.  The Navy will deal with some short term pain over the next couple of years and a decreased op tempo; however, I think long term the service will be well served by the NSPS.

Offline AlexanderM

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,190
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 442
  • Resident George Constanza
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #28 on: September 20, 2014, 20:11:18 »
Is it a sign that they may soon announce the order for the new Destroyers, as in with details?
« Last Edit: September 20, 2014, 20:57:56 by AlexanderM »

Offline Occam

    Go RRRRRRRREDBLACKS!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 92,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,004
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #29 on: September 20, 2014, 20:53:13 »
I'm afraid it'll be a while yet before you see anything about CSC.

Offline donaldk

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,845
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 101
Re: Re: HMCS Provider
« Reply #30 on: September 20, 2014, 21:53:05 »
Probably none; it's going to take a few years to get all the surveys done and get everything prepared for the demilitarization and deconstruction.  I'm sure there are enough holes to fill in the fleet now, and you still need some folks onboard for security and basic maintenance.

Based on the last few ships that got turned over for artificial reefs with the crazy bureaucracy, as well as the cost of stripping it down for a sinkex (roughly double a straight dismantling), probably neither of those will happen.  There are a few yards in Canada capable; but none of the west coast.  Closest is Brownsville, Tx, so may as well carry on up the coast and do it in country.

Just waiting for the Op Stat transfer msg to hit...

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,365
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,585
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #31 on: September 21, 2014, 00:50:48 »
The fact is, the present government has a plan to replace our ships, it also has a plan to develop a ship-building industry which will give us strategic capacity. 

I think that this will be the last time that we will rebuild our shipbuilding industry. If we let it die again then we better put a stake in it, our treasury cannot handle another rebuild.

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services pai
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 266,372
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,198
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #32 on: September 21, 2014, 04:05:44 »
While this looks like a big hit to the RCN capability wise, at least on paper, the reality is that these ships were at the end of their service-life and need to be replaced.  We can go on about the ifs, ands or buts of why we don't have replacements yet but realistically none of that matters at this point.  The fact is, the present government has a plan to replace our ships, it also has a plan to develop a ship-building industry which will give us strategic capacity. 

I agree with Edward and I think this is a very good move by the government and the RCN.  I anxiously await seeing the first keel cut at both Seaspan and Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax.  The Navy will deal with some short term pain over the next couple of years and a decreased op tempo; however, I think long term the service will be well served by the NSPS.

So what's the plan? Spend the next ten years deficient of a concrete plan, given by Canadian shipbuilders. Or buy offshore and have our equipment in two years?

Canadian shipbuilders have to be held to a performance contract. If you don't produce in the first two years, as specified, you go to half purchase price compounded for every year you're late. Within a few years they will be building for nothing.

This goes back to our AFV's and aircraft. If Canadian corporations can't meet quota and deadlines, we need to buy somewhere else.

I'm tired of Canadian industry holding us hostage for Canadian content rules.

If they don't like it, they'll get lean and mean, rather than holding our country for ransom, which we have to make clear, we will not pay anymore.
Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,065
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,508
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #33 on: September 21, 2014, 04:16:05 »
So what's the plan? Spend the next ten years deficient of a concrete plan, given by Canadian shipbuilders. Or buy offshore and have our equipment in two years?

Canadian shipbuilders have to be held to a performance contract. If you don't produce in the first two years, as specified, you go to half purchase price compounded for every year you're late. Within a few years they will be building for nothing.

This goes back to our AFV's and aircraft. If Canadian corporations can't meet quota and deadlines, we need to buy somewhere else.

I'm tired of Canadian industry holding us hostage for Canadian content rules.

If they don't like it, they'll get lean and mean, rather than holding our country for ransom, which we have to make clear, we will not pay anymore.

I agree, if you cant compete with say south korean yards or german yards then why should we invest when we wont see a return?
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #34 on: September 21, 2014, 05:14:18 »
Because "Canada first" in respect to procurement is first and foremost nothing but vote buying.   To buy off shore, while logical would be political suicide.  I don't see that changing.

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 153,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,549
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #35 on: September 21, 2014, 05:23:53 »
Because "Canada first" in respect to procurement is first and foremost nothing but vote buying.   To buy off shore, while logical would be political suicide.  I don't see that changing.

Yep, and the Aussies are catching flak for their decisions for their RAN vessels (esp the subs) at this time. 
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 475,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,290
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #36 on: September 21, 2014, 06:02:44 »
See my comments about "Buy America," "Canada First," and stupid political decisions driven by even more stupid voters here. And I mean it: the reason ministers and senior bureaucrats, generally smarter than average people, make dumb decisions is because the people, the almighty but incredibly stupid f'ing people, demand stupid decisions.

Tony Abbott may get away with some smart defence procurement in Australia, but if he does it is because Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard have nearly destroyed the Labour Party, not because Australians are smart. He might, also, spend some of the dollars he saves by smarter defence procurement on visible job creation projects, remembering Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's quip about Canadians liking to see construction cranes because it means people are working.

It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 103,489
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,918
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #37 on: September 21, 2014, 07:28:17 »
So what's the plan? Spend the next ten years deficient of a concrete plan, given by Canadian shipbuilders. Or buy offshore and have our equipment in two years?

Canadian shipbuilders have to be held to a performance contract. If you don't produce in the first two years, as specified, you go to half purchase price compounded for every year you're late. Within a few years they will be building for nothing.

This goes back to our AFV's and aircraft. If Canadian corporations can't meet quota and deadlines, we need to buy somewhere else.

I'm tired of Canadian industry holding us hostage for Canadian content rules.

If they don't like it, they'll get lean and mean, rather than holding our country for ransom, which we have to make clear, we will not pay anymore.

I'm not sure what you mean by "spend the next ten years deficient of a concrete plan" when the government has the NSPS and lays out in quite clear detail what it intends to do.  The NSPS is the plan and  calls for a phased re-building of the RCN along with the development of a local shipbuilding industry in order to support that re-building. 

Just because the timelines don't jive with expectations of certain members of the CF doesn't mean there is no plan.  Again, I've said it before but "Soldiers/Sailors are incapable of making policy decisions because they always think whatever they have isn't good enough, that they need more of it and that they aren't getting the support they need," we work for the government. not the other way around and they determine what we should be doing and what kit we are going to be using.

The present government is one of the most disciplined in recent times and they were dealt a bad deck of cards with regard to a military that has been rusting out for decades with little procurement of new equipment.  They've made the best of a bad situation and rather than rushing hastily from procurement battle to procurement battle, they have developed a long term plan which will set us up for long term success.

Will it be more expensive at first? 

Most definitely but Rome wasn't built in a day and it was always going to be more expensive when the previous industry was destroyed without so much as an after thought.

Is it all about Political Pork?

Of course it is but what decision the government of the day makes isn't?  It all goes back to Clausewitz's idea of Politik.  The CF is a tool of policy for the government and the NSPS is a clear reflection of that relationship. 

I view the NSPS in the same vein as any other infrastructure project the government undertakes i.e. oil and gas pipelines, highway construction, etc... it's all meant to increase our industrial capacity which is also a form of military power.  We will now have our own shipbuilding industry which builds our own ships and gives us Strategic Capacity.  I envision this industry branching off into other areas other than military shipbuilding with the biggest target being the oil and gas sector, particularly the off shore one. 


jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #38 on: September 21, 2014, 09:24:44 »
I'm not sure what you mean by "spend the next ten years deficient of a concrete plan" when the government has the NSPS and lays out in quite clear detail what it intends to do.  The NSPS is the plan and  calls for a phased re-building of the RCN along with the development of a local shipbuilding industry in order to support that re-building. 

Just because the timelines don't jive with expectations of certain members of the CF doesn't mean there is no plan.  Again, I've said it before but "Soldiers/Sailors are incapable of making policy decisions because they always think whatever they have isn't good enough, that they need more of it and that they aren't getting the support they need," we work for the government. not the other way around and they determine what we should be doing and what kit we are going to be using.

Yes, of course.  Silly me.  The AOR's and 280's, are top notch, cutting edge and they were good enough for a sailor of the 1960's, why not for those of today.  I suppose those of us who've struggled to keep them going in what must be their obviously best years of service don't have a f'n clue and are a bunch of f'n whiners.  Same for the soldiers who were saddled with rusting out MLVW or the FANTASTIC LSVW fleets...  ::)

The present government is one of the most disciplined in recent times and they were dealt a bad deck of cards with regard to a military that has been rusting out for decades with little procurement of new equipment.  They've made the best of a bad situation and rather than rushing hastily from procurement battle to procurement battle, they have developed a long term plan which will set us up for long term success.

Will it be more expensive at first? 

Most definitely but Rome wasn't built in a day and it was always going to be more expensive when the previous industry was destroyed without so much as an after thought.

Is it all about Political Pork?

Of course it is but what decision the government of the day makes isn't?  It all goes back to Clausewitz's idea of Politik.  The CF is a tool of policy for the government and the NSPS is a clear reflection of that relationship. 

I view the NSPS in the same vein as any other infrastructure project the government undertakes i.e. oil and gas pipelines, highway construction, etc... it's all meant to increase our industrial capacity which is also a form of military power.  We will now have our own shipbuilding industry which builds our own ships and gives us Strategic CapacityI envision this industry branching off into other areas other than military shipbuilding with the biggest target being the oil and gas sector, particularly the off shore one. 

I don't. There wasn't a rush of orders to keep these yards on the east coast running when they finished the pervious naval builds.  If that were the case, then they wouldn't need to be rebuilt.  Buyers are going off shore where they get it cheaper, faster and without the BS.  Seaspan was in pretty good condition.  Irving and Davies in particular less so.  Good luck with that.



Offline Chief Stoker

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 737,327
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,789
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #39 on: September 21, 2014, 10:09:05 »
I'm not sure what you mean by "spend the next ten years deficient of a concrete plan" when the government has the NSPS and lays out in quite clear detail what it intends to do.  The NSPS is the plan and  calls for a phased re-building of the RCN along with the development of a local shipbuilding industry in order to support that re-building. 

Just because the timelines don't jive with expectations of certain members of the CF doesn't mean there is no plan.  Again, I've said it before but "Soldiers/Sailors are incapable of making policy decisions because they always think whatever they have isn't good enough, that they need more of it and that they aren't getting the support they need," we work for the government. not the other way around and they determine what we should be doing and what kit we are going to be using.

The present government is one of the most disciplined in recent times and they were dealt a bad deck of cards with regard to a military that has been rusting out for decades with little procurement of new equipment.  They've made the best of a bad situation and rather than rushing hastily from procurement battle to procurement battle, they have developed a long term plan which will set us up for long term success.

Will it be more expensive at first? 

Most definitely but Rome wasn't built in a day and it was always going to be more expensive when the previous industry was destroyed without so much as an after thought.

Is it all about Political Pork?

Of course it is but what decision the government of the day makes isn't?  It all goes back to Clausewitz's idea of Politik.  The CF is a tool of policy for the government and the NSPS is a clear reflection of that relationship. 

I view the NSPS in the same vein as any other infrastructure project the government undertakes i.e. oil and gas pipelines, highway construction, etc... it's all meant to increase our industrial capacity which is also a form of military power.  We will now have our own shipbuilding industry which builds our own ships and gives us Strategic Capacity.  I envision this industry branching off into other areas other than military shipbuilding with the biggest target being the oil and gas sector, particularly the off shore one.

If the government and previous governments had stuck with its plans for new support ships and haven't kept extending the paying off of the 280's and the tankers we would be in better stread right now. Yes the NSPS is a great idea but 10 years too late, we are facing significant capability shortfall and to me and many members of the RCN thats unacceptable. It may be silly to have high expectations, but tell that to someone sailing on a 40 yr old ship a 1000 miles from land in a storm. Many of my peers have seen this coming and yes many of us think that its not good enough. I may be naive, but I expect better of my government.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 52,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 596
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #40 on: September 21, 2014, 10:53:13 »
See my comments about "Buy America," "Canada First," and stupid political decisions driven by even more stupid voters here. And I mean it: the reason ministers and senior bureaucrats, generally smarter than average people, make dumb decisions is because the people, the almighty but incredibly stupid f'ing people, demand stupid decisions.

Tony Abbott may get away with some smart defence procurement in Australia, but if he does it is because Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard have nearly destroyed the Labour Party, not because Australians are smart. He might, also, spend some of the dollars he saves by smarter defence procurement on visible job creation projects, remembering Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's quip about Canadians liking to see construction cranes because it means people are working.

Agree totally but what particularly bothers me about the NSPS is that for the most part we're planning to design and build ships that nobody else will ever buy.  There are a pretty limited number of countries that are in the market for a high-end multi-purpose frigate and most of these countries have their own domestic programs and will never politically be able to choose to buy Canadian. 

If you're going to spend pork on shipbuilders then in my opinion you need to both KEEP them busy with ongoing orders and have them build something for which there is an international market.  The CSC is at the top end of what the major world navies have in their fleets.  The US, Brits, French, Italians, Spanish, Japanese, Danes, etc. are not going to give orders for their premier warships to Canada over their own shipyards.  It's just not going to happen.  The rest of the world DO buy warships offshore because they don't have their own industries to protect, but they simply can't afford ships like the CSC. 

In my humble opinion Canada would be better served both militarily and industrially by once again becoming primarily a "Corvette Navy".  We have the longest coastline in the world which means we should have a fairly large number of ships and aircraft to patrol and protect that water.  We're also blessed with an excellent strategic location in that our populated areas are physically far from other naval powers and we sit on top of the US with it's dominant navy.  No other country has the blue-water power to steam into North American waters with their fleet and hope to survive. 

Submarines, mines and asymmetrical attacks however would be a serious potential and realistic threat.  I think in many ways having a larger number of ASW corvettes instead of a smaller number of multi-purpose and AAW Frigates would not only provide better protection for our own waters but would be as much of an advantage for our allies as well.  The USN has lost much of it's ASW capability and experience at the same time that diesel subs are becoming more central to the navies of many potential enemies.  Canadian expertise in this area would probably be very welcome.

A ship design similar to DCNS's GoWind class (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/gowind_corvettes/) that are around 2000t with a crew of less than 100, have a helicopter hanger and stern ramps that can be used for RHIBs for boarding parties or mine hunting UUVs and 3-week endurance might be able to fulfill this role.  The RCN could perhaps have a standing order for one new ship every two years which could give us a 30-ship fleet that is constantly renewing itself as technology advances and give our shipyards an affordable hullform that can be modified into a number of ship configurations that would be affordable for international customers. 

If there's a real need for a handful of more capable AAW or Command-capable Frigates/Destroyers then buy a couple of those off the shelf from the US/Brits/French/etc. to save time and cost rather than designing and building our own (because we'll never sell them to anyone else anyway).

Offline MARS

  • Mentor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 59,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 801
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #41 on: September 21, 2014, 12:19:06 »
Again, I've said it before but "Soldiers/Sailors are incapable of making policy decisions because they always think whatever they have isn't good enough, that they need more of it and that they aren't getting the support they need," we work for the government. not the other way around and they determine what we should be doing and what kit we are going to be using.

I agree.  Your quote makes me think of Billy Connelly and the tail end of his "women's demands" stand-up comedy routine.

Here is the Youtube of it, I think - hopefully just the end bit (I can't access Youtube from my current location to check the clip)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga3BQWoNPq0

Here is the text version in case the link is duff:

"We want this! And that. We demand a share in that, and most of that, some of this and ******* all of that. Less of that, more of this and ******* plenty of this. And another thing we want it now. I want it yesterday and I want ******* more tomorrow. And the demands will all be checked then so ******* stay awake."
"Managers do things right; Leaders do the right thing"

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 20,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 622
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #42 on: September 21, 2014, 13:00:45 »
Just as a thought, could they have deliberately set out to make a big thing out of the decommissioning to make a strategic off-shore buy to cover the gap until our own constructs come on line in much the same manner as they bought the CH47s?  Look, our ships are rusted out we have a plan but buying these few ? will bridge the gap and give our industry time to come on line.   

Online Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 211,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,615
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #43 on: September 21, 2014, 13:29:07 »
Announcing an off shore buy instead of contracting to build and buy in Canada would, it seems to me, be a political misstep of gargantuan proportions. Can you imagine the furor as the opposition, the unions, the media, the academics and the create-a-job crowd attack it for being anti-whatever group you can think of that knows enough to jump in front of a camera and speak in short, vivid sentences that air well on the evening news? (Sorry for the run on sentence.)

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 103,489
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,918
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #44 on: September 21, 2014, 15:08:40 »
If the government and previous governments had stuck with its plans for new support ships and haven't kept extending the paying off of the 280's and the tankers we would be in better stread right now. Yes the NSPS is a great idea but 10 years too late, we are facing significant capability shortfall and to me and many members of the RCN thats unacceptable. It may be silly to have high expectations, but tell that to someone sailing on a 40 yr old ship a 1000 miles from land in a storm. Many of my peers have seen this coming and yes many of us think that its not good enough. I may be naive, but I expect better of my government.

Chief, I come from the light infantry so I know exactly what it's like to get the shaft not just from the government but from your own organization who doesn't really give a damn about what you do. 

Expectations need to be managed, we had a 10 year war that we had too pay for, certain things during that time were put on the back burner while we fought said war, the Navy took the brunt of it during that timeframe.  While the government's present plan isn't the be all end all, at least it has a plan.  The next few years are going to be difficult for all the services, we all have our own issues that we are trying to work out but I am confident everything will turn out for the best in the coming years. 

What the services desperately need is to start working together on issues facing the CF and stop being so closed minded, we have a tendency to focus on ourselves and forget that we are part of a bigger machine that is the CF.

Offline Chief Stoker

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 737,327
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,789
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #45 on: September 21, 2014, 17:48:09 »
Chief, I come from the light infantry so I know exactly what it's like to get the shaft not just from the government but from your own organization who doesn't really give a damn about what you do. 

Expectations need to be managed, we had a 10 year war that we had too pay for, certain things during that time were put on the back burner while we fought said war, the Navy took the brunt of it during that timeframe.  While the government's present plan isn't the be all end all, at least it has a plan.  The next few years are going to be difficult for all the services, we all have our own issues that we are trying to work out but I am confident everything will turn out for the best in the coming years. 

What the services desperately need is to start working together on issues facing the CF and stop being so closed minded, we have a tendency to focus on ourselves and forget that we are part of a bigger machine that is the CF.

Sir, honestly where I work I don't often think about the other services and the hard times they are surely facing. What I do often think about is the morale issues we face operating a navy that is slowly but surely rusting away and the flood of personnel leaving. Perhaps its the idea that in short order and for a significant period of time we will have more crews that we have hulls for and we cannot meet our committements. I am glad that there is some kind of plan in place to provide us new platforms, however like I mentioned before its the priority I don't like and I am entitled to my own opinion. I accept it and support it but I don't have to like it. From my many years of experience at sea hoping everything is going to turn out for the best is foolish, you may as well plan for and expect the worse.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 122,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,749
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #46 on: September 22, 2014, 10:32:16 »
If there is a surplus of sailors, lease a couple of icebreakers, paint them grey, put light armament on them and let them train and work in the arctic. Start now and everything should be ready for next season.

Also look at some small vessel stuff, including small patrol boats and landing craft, anything that can be leased. It would be challenging and give Junior Officers more chances of command and broaden the experience base in the navy.

Offline Pat in Halifax

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 32,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 906
  • Jackwagon
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #47 on: September 22, 2014, 10:48:35 »
Okay Colin. There you go using common sence and logic again!

To compound this, we DO NOT have a surplus of sailors because we are retasking to platforms with NO (RegF) BILLETS (ORCA and KIN class).

I don't know what the answer is but that Norwegian frigate outside my window sure looks like it may fit the bill for some of our strategic deficencies....
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb ******* die for his"
George S. Patton

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 122,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,749
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #48 on: September 22, 2014, 11:12:42 »
Sounds like a armed boarding party is in order, cutting out a frigate is part of the tradition! Of course it will have to be cleansed of Lutefisk afterwards!

Offline suffolkowner

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,935
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 300
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - all Destroyers and 1 x AOR
« Reply #49 on: September 22, 2014, 13:02:12 »
USNS Bridge and USNS Rainier may be available for lease until are Berlin class enter service.

This would be a good idea in my opinion. The gap in capabilities both within the RCN and NATO is growing too large. There will without a doubt be further slippage in the schedule. It might be time to look at upgrading some Halifax class frigates further as well maybe Smart-L instead of Smart-S. The Irving yard is probably more susceptible to delay than Seaspan. Can the Halifax replacements really be expected before 2030?