Author Topic: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ  (Read 477017 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 217,380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,223
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1150 on: August 30, 2018, 23:02:19 »
Just a minor correction, G2G: It's T-AKE, not T-KAE.  ;D

The "T-" indicates that the ship is operated by the Military Sealift Command (hence, by civilians), while the AKE is the ship's type designator, indicating a "advanced dry cargo ship" as the type.

OGBD, I plead autocorrect by some crappy DJ, dang’it! ;D


Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 142,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,692
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1151 on: August 30, 2018, 23:07:01 »
At least it didn't come out as TKO then.  ;)
« Last Edit: August 30, 2018, 23:15:05 by Oldgateboatdriver »

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 74,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,642
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1152 on: September 18, 2018, 15:29:06 »
See the timelines for the Royal Navy's two types (Type 31e smaller) of new frigates:

1) Type 26:

Quote
Why will the Royal Navy not have its first Type 26 frigate operational until 2027 [when will first CSC be ready?]

Defence Procurement Minister, Guto Bebb stated in Parliament on 23rd April that the first Type 26 frigate, HMS Glasgow is due to be accepted from the builders in the summer of 2025. Eighteen months of further trials and training should see her become operational in 2027. Here we ask why the navy must tolerate such a leisurely eight-year construction schedule.

The Type 26 promises to be a superb submarine hunter and, if adequate investment is made in equipping them with the right weapon fit, they have the potential to be one of best surface combatants in the world. They will be the backbone of our anti-submarine capability and escort for the QEC aircraft carriers, in a world that everyone agrees is becoming more dangerous...

A lack of urgency

Not only should these vessels have been ordered at least 5 years ago, we now find that an extraordinarily leisurely build schedule has been agreed upon. Since the 2015 SDSR, the in-service date for the first T26 has been officially described as in the “mid-2020s”. Using historical precedent, many had assumed a construction time of around 5-6 years, expecting HMS Glasgow would probably begin sea trials in 2023. A comparable complex warship HMS Daring, the first Type 45 destroyer, was laid down March 2003 and accepted by RN in December 2008, a build time of 5 years and 9 months. The Type 45 was arguably more complex and innovative than the T26, with 80% of its equipment new to RN service. T26 is a sophisticated design but relatively low risk. The ‘mission bay’ concept and Mk 41 VLS are new to the RN but already in use with other navies. Significant de-risking work on the design and major components has already been conducted using virtual reality and land-based test rigs. There will be some challenging systems integration work and a bespoke propulsion system but the majority of its key weapons, sensors, decoys, combat system and engines are already proven, and in many cases, already in service on other platforms.

...Whatever the reason for the slow construction, it does not look good in the brochure for the T26 Global Combat Ship design that BAE Systems is looking to export to Australia and Canada. As a light cruiser-sized vessel, T26 comes with space and power generation facilities to support future upgrades but the £3.7Bn build contract for the first three ships certainly does not allow for major changes during construction.

Why won’t these frigates be built faster?

There are no problems with the available space or manufacturing facilities in Glasgow, neither are there issues with the supply chain or the overall complexity of the ship. It is not BAE Systems dragging their feet, rather the MoD is deliberately slowing delivery. The shipbuilding facility and workforce has therefore been sized and scaled to meet the requirements of the customer. The reality is that constricted annual budgets force the MoD to make short-term savings by spreading the cost over a longer time period [emphasis added]. Stretching out procurement programmes with artificially-induced delays may reduce the annual expenditure, but over the lifetime of the project always adds significant additional costs...
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/why-will-the-royal-navy-not-have-its-first-type-26-frigate-operational-until-2027/

2) Type 31e:
Quote
Making sense of the Royal Navy’s frigate building schedule

In an earlier article [see above], we examined the slow build and delivery schedule for the first Type 26 frigates. With this infographic [please go to link below], we attempt to assess how the projected construction schedule fits with the decommissioning of the Type 23 frigates.

This is very much an outline projection using elements of guesswork, based on the limited information available today and is likely to change. There are several important assumptions made in the timeline. Type 31s will be laid down in a drumbeat of approximately 1 per year and as simpler ships, their trials and introduction into service should be much faster than the Type 26. It has been stated that the first three Type 26s will be under construction for about 8 years with first of class trials and work up lasting almost 2 years. The first three ships are being laid down at around 18-24 month intervals. It is assumed the later ships will be laid down at about the same rate but constructed and brought into service slightly faster, although this would appear to be imperative, it is uncertain at this time.

Conclusions

Each of the five Type 31e frigates will have to be constructed, complete sea trials and worked up in around 4 years (the contract will be awarded in early 2019) if they are to be ready to replace the first five Type 23s on time. This is very demanding and does not provide any slack, should any significant construction snags or technical problems arise [first to be laid down 2019, in service 2023]...
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/making-sense-of-the-royal-navys-frigate-building-schedule/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline JMCanada

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 71
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1153 on: September 18, 2018, 18:39:18 »
Now compare that to the fact that V. de Quebec is nowadays deployed in eastern med. along with De Ruyter ( zeven provincien class) and C. Colon (F-100).

How much risk and delay is the MOD ready or willing to take?

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 74,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,642
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1154 on: October 01, 2018, 15:07:49 »
Most of what you need to know from FrontLine Defence, excerpt:

Quote
CSC 2018 Evaluation Stage
...
Although rumours are swirling about the possibility of two variants on a common platform, a DND spokesperson confirms that “the current requirement is that all 15 CSC ships will have the same capabilities: anti-air warfare, anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, electronic warfare as well as command and control.”

The DND email to FrontLine goes on to say that “Funding has been set aside to deliver the full complement of ships the Royal Canadian Navy needs, in order to provide capability across the full range of operations. This will replace both the recently retired Iroquois-class destroyers and the Halifax-class frigates with a single class of ship capable of meeting multiple threats on both the open ocean and the highly complex coastal (littoral) environment.”

One rumour suggests that an initial tranche would be built “to facilitate narrowing the production gap at Irving.” But the official word from DND is that “In recognition of the duration of the design and construction for the ships, the competitive procurement required bidders to bid on major equipment for the first three ships. These competitive prices will then be used as the basis for negotiation of equipment which will be installed in subsequent ships.”

How the Government expects to receive the best pricing for the most expensive single procurement in Canadian military history based on only 3 of the 15 was not explained.

Whichever way quantities and variants play out, the chosen design must be cost-effective and fully capable in the current global environment, be adaptable to the future maritime threat environment, and have growth margins to allow for role changes and upgrades in technology, particularly weapon systems (hence the criticality of this process).

Insiders are saying the estimated completion of the winning design and contractor team selection process is now expected to be in November 2018 (though more likely early 2019), with ship construction to start the early 2020s [emphasis added].

A note of caution comes from Jean-Denis Fréchette, the Parliamentary Budget Officer. For every year that the awarding of the contract is delayed beyond 2018, his staff estimates the program will cost taxpayers an extra $3 Billion due to inflation...
https://defence.frontline.online/article/2018/5/10490-CSC-2018-Evaluation-Stage

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline AirDet

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 8,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 335
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1155 on: October 01, 2018, 15:35:45 »
In fact, I heard a very depressing statement the other day that rings some what true. Essentially this person said:

"The entire MARLANT organization, with all its schools, personnel management, maintenance facilities, intelligence facilities, HQs, and support units, totalling over 5000 people, is here just to put 1 Frigate to see on deployment for 6 months out of the year."

That sounds about right. But I'll take that to it's natural conclusion for you...

The only reason that Frigate even exists is to provide a heliport for the Helo!  :evilrifle:
Just because an opinion differs doesn't make it any less valid. Remember those who gave their ALL to guarantee freedom of speech.

Offline kratz

    Back into the Fall routine.

  • Float, Move, Fight
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 266,363
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,361
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1156 on: October 01, 2018, 16:05:47 »
Quote from: AirDet
The only reason that Frigate even exists is to provide a heliport for the Helo!  :evilrifle:

Stand down Trigger.  :cowboy: /s
Aircrew enjoy SDA added on top of their other allowances.
Quote from: Pipe *General Call*
"Tanning Stations on the flight deck"


Remember, this site is unofficial and privately owned. The site benefits from the presence of current members willing to answer questions.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 217,380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,223
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1157 on: October 01, 2018, 18:15:35 »
Stand down Trigger.  :cowboy: /s
Aircrew enjoy SDA added on top of their other allowances.

Yeah!  Double-dipping Internet-surfing crew-resting Prima Donnas!


(Said the ex triple-dipping (PLT/AIRCRA/LDA) semi(on account of doing some (air)field time)-Prima Donna...  ;D )

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 186,341
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,109
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1158 on: October 01, 2018, 18:54:48 »
In fact, I heard a very depressing statement the other day that rings some what true. Essentially this person said:

"The entire MARLANT organization, with all its schools, personnel management, maintenance facilities, intelligence facilities, HQs, and support units, totalling over 5000 people, is here just to put 1 Frigate to see on deployment for 6 months out of the year."



This is only somewhat accurate - in terms of major international deployers, yes, one at a time, in serial is the way we do it.  Usually.


However, if you actually look at what we support, our MARLANT organization in the Halifax area (plus the NFS(A) det here that belongs to MARPAC) actually has a frigate on deployment to a NATO/UN/Etc tasking for 11 out of 12 months in a year. 


We also support FDU deploying 4-5 times a year on various tasks and deployments, as well as MCDV's doing an average of 3x deployments (2+ months for 2x ships) per year, plus the other 6 Frigates undergoing their TRP's getting them on the road to readiness for deployment to replace the one that's gone.  On top of that we have the submarines, with the specialized work that goes into supporting and maintaining them.  (We had a sub deployed on the west coast for over 4 months which got considerable support from the MARLANT area as well.)


You are severely understating the availability of spots in the parking lot in HMC Dockyard.


NS
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 59,834
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,106
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1159 on: October 02, 2018, 09:21:45 »

This is only somewhat accurate - in terms of major international deployers, yes, one at a time, in serial is the way we do it.  Usually.


However, if you actually look at what we support, our MARLANT organization in the Halifax area (plus the NFS(A) det here that belongs to MARPAC) actually has a frigate on deployment to a NATO/UN/Etc tasking for 11 out of 12 months in a year. 


We also support FDU deploying 4-5 times a year on various tasks and deployments, as well as MCDV's doing an average of 3x deployments (2+ months for 2x ships) per year, plus the other 6 Frigates undergoing their TRP's getting them on the road to readiness for deployment to replace the one that's gone.  On top of that we have the submarines, with the specialized work that goes into supporting and maintaining them.  (We had a sub deployed on the west coast for over 4 months which got considerable support from the MARLANT area as well.)


You are severely understating the availability of spots in the parking lot in HMC Dockyard.


NS

Yes yes, all of these things... but what are all of these things?... could we say categories most of them as Force... Generation?

We're sending 3 ships to Europe in the fall, for example  (and that's from the unclassified fleet schedule, so no one get your panties in a bunch about opsec), which is impressive, but they're going for Force Generation, not Force Employment.

So, yes, we have more that one ship sailing 6 months out of the year, but all of that sailing is for the purpose of force generating in preparation to force employ 1 Frigate 6 months out of the year.

If we had to, how many ships do you things we could deploy together on a 6-8 months named operation?
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 463,870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,833
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1160 on: October 02, 2018, 10:44:22 »
If we had to, how many ships do you things we could deploy together on a 6-8 months named operation?

I don't think it qualifies as a crisis until Oriole is the ready duty ship.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 38,055
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,663
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1161 on: October 02, 2018, 13:31:00 »
I don't think it qualifies as a crisis until Oriole is the ready duty ship.

Or they get Haida ready to deploy
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline LoboCanada

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 143
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1162 on: October 02, 2018, 13:43:44 »
Off topic, but has anyone ever lobbied to have Haida sail again? You think it has more of a place in history than Oriole, would be a better trophy ship to do port visits in than a tallboat IMHO.

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 26,015
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 764
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1163 on: October 02, 2018, 17:13:37 »
Would probably cost as much to get up steam in the Haida as a new one.  Even the props are gone, I think and every part needed would have to be made from scratch.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 31,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 874
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1164 on: October 02, 2018, 19:02:34 »
Yes yes, all of these things... but what are all of these things?... could we say categories most of them as Force... Generation?
..

The navy doesn't have a neat box on force employment/generation like the army and airforce.  Unless we are actively shooting, we're still doing force generation in theatre while on HR.  To be honest, deploying was less busy than any of the TGEXs or various other 'force generation' sails I've ever done, and you always have the fun that goes along with things catching on fire or otherwise failing catastrophically in new and fun ways regardless of your posture, so the only real difference between force employment sails and force generation sails is you tend to leave the wall with more stuff working on HR.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 178,700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,351
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1165 on: October 02, 2018, 19:06:53 »
How does the Navy define Force Generation and Force Employment?

To me, if a warship is at sea with ammunition, it can be employed.  Is there confirmation gateways ships must achieve before being considered "available for employment?"
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 120,829
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,252
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1166 on: October 02, 2018, 19:34:29 »
How does the Navy define Force Generation and Force Employment?

To me, if a warship is at sea with ammunition, it can be employed.  Is there confirmation gateways ships must achieve before being considered "available for employment?"

You will find this interesting as I just found it out from being in Esquimalt the past few months and having a few old pals that explained things to me.

Unlike the Army, the Navy has this organization called Sea Training, who are responsible for Ship's Standing Orders(SSOs), which is the document that governs everything on a Royal Canadian Navy Vessel.  Sea Training are like OCTs at CMTC except they work directly for the Fleet Commander and are there to ensure that Vessels are complying with SSOs which are essentially "Best practices" that are defined by Sea Training.  They have actual power and are SMEs in their respective fields and blowing them off will get you in huge poopoo.

What this ensures is that every ship in the RCN functions the exact same way and that there is one standard and commonality across the RCN.  You won't see three different brigades with three entirely different HQ Setups as that would go against SSOs.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 31,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 874
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1167 on: October 02, 2018, 20:14:43 »
How does the Navy define Force Generation and Force Employment?

To me, if a warship is at sea with ammunition, it can be employed.  Is there confirmation gateways ships must achieve before being considered "available for employment?"
When a ship is just coming out of a docking work period, there are a number of trials that need to happen, plus training for the ship's company.  That's when you are in a reduced readiness, and generally don't have the equipment required to do much (but would be able to respond to a SAR or something if you are in the area or similar).

There is a set of training and equipment required to get to a standard readiness, some stuff required for an embarked helo, and the full suite to get up to a fully booted and spurred warship.  It's tiered to what kind of ops you can do, so a bit of a spectrum for employment.

Force generation/force employment is a bit fuzzy, but generally most of the time if the ships are under coastal control they are doing force gen, and are chopped out to CJOC if you are doing force employment.  But even on deployments, you still do 'force generation' (training serials while in theatre, task group exercises etc), and are always available while doing force generation sails to support real world stuff.

We always had an issue getting trainees in and out of theatre while dealing with CJOC as a result, as they expect us to keep the same crew the entire time, which isn't how we work.

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,820
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,852
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1168 on: October 02, 2018, 20:20:59 »
You will find this interesting as I just found it out from being in Esquimalt the past few months and having a few old pals that explained things to me.

Unlike the Army, the Navy has this organization called Sea Training, who are responsible for Ship's Standing Orders(SSOs), which is the document that governs everything on a Royal Canadian Navy Vessel.  Sea Training are like OCTs at CMTC except they work directly for the Fleet Commander and are there to ensure that Vessels are complying with SSOs which are essentially "Best practices" that are defined by Sea Training.  They have actual power and are SMEs in their respective fields and blowing them off will get you in huge poopoo.

What this ensures is that every ship in the RCN functions the exact same way and that there is one standard and commonality across the RCN.  You won't see three different brigades with three entirely different HQ Setups as that would go against SSOs.

I'm glad you explained how the RCN works from an Army perspective. I joined the Joint Battlespace Management Capability project last summer and was quickly exposed to the way the Army conducts its business through my interactions with JTFW, JTFC and FOIE. I'm still somewhat confused how the Army brigades talk to each other. Or do they even talk to each other?

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 178,700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,351
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1169 on: October 02, 2018, 20:26:27 »
Fascinating, thanks guys.  So, a ship doing some ASW training over off the UK is Force Generation and responds to its naval chain of command.  It could, the next day, be chopped to CJOC and deployed to the Med for Force Employment.

Again, I'm assuming there is a spectrum of risk for operational employment based on how much of the "readiness training" a ship has done in Force Generation.  Is there formal events where "Sea Training" comes down to "check ride" a ship?

I'm still somewhat confused how the Army brigades talk to each other. Or do they even talk to each other?

Not really.  They belong to different Divisions and rotate through different periods of readiness.  Brigades don't really work together, they take over from each other.  There has long been a valid argument to combine the Brigades under a single Division Commander who can rope the three Armies into one direction.

"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,820
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,852
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1170 on: October 02, 2018, 21:30:29 »
Fascinating, thanks guys.  So, a ship doing some ASW training over off the UK is Force Generation and responds to its naval chain of command.  It could, the next day, be chopped to CJOC and deployed to the Med for Force Employment.

Again, I'm assuming there is a spectrum of risk for operational employment based on how much of the "readiness training" a ship has done in Force Generation.  Is there formal events where "Sea Training" comes down to "check ride" a ship?


Yes, its called Work-ups and there are several different types of them. Someone more current or from Sea Training itself can give you more detail than I.


Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 183,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,408
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1171 on: October 02, 2018, 21:40:12 »
What this ensures is that every ship in the RCN functions the exact same way and that there is one standard and commonality across the RCN.  You won't see three different brigades with three entirely different HQ Setups as that would go against SSOs.

Given the amount of jetty-jumping (attachments to other ships) due to manning levels, having all the ships run the same way is a necessity. 
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 SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 150,820
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,460
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1172 on: October 02, 2018, 23:46:36 »
How does the Navy define Force Generation and Force Employment?

To me, if a warship is at sea with ammunition, it can be employed.  Is there confirmation gateways ships must achieve before being considered "available for employment?"

You would benefit from wandering over to the Naval Staff and having a chat them on how they manage the FG/FE issue. Also, PM me if you need to be put in touch with Sea Training to see how they operate. It occurs to me that the Army could learn some lessons here.

Offline CBH99

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 27,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 819
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1173 on: October 03, 2018, 02:47:24 »
Not really.  They belong to different Divisions and rotate through different periods of readiness.  Brigades don't really work together, they take over from each other.  There has long been a valid argument to combine the Brigades under a single Division Commander who can rope the three Armies into one direction.


Funny you word it that way, because it's so true.

It makes perfect sense for the RCN to have the exact same procedures & standards throughout the fleet, as people can "jetty jump" from one ship to another, and plug themselves right in.  Excellent way of doing things, and makes perfect sense given the RCN's size & manning issues.

When I was in the Army, we would occasionally work with folks from the RCR - who had a very different way of doing things, even in garrison.  And working, taking over, or having them take over - with the R22/French battalions - holy crap.  Other than the same uniforms, you'd think we were 2 completely different armies.
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 183,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,408
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1174 on: October 03, 2018, 02:51:00 »
Not really.  They belong to different Divisions and rotate through different periods of readiness.  Brigades don't really work together, they take over from each other.  There has long been a valid argument to combine the Brigades under a single Division Commander who can rope the three Armies into one direction.

Ah, but which one becomes the standard?   :stirpot:
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."