Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC

[Czech_pivo]

Why must we in this case? If coastal continental defence really is a must, I think we'd get much better bang for our buck with drones, mobile batteries and other things and not combat ships that are much bigger than the MCDVs we just got rid of (because we don't have people to crew them).

This particular project is aspirational at best, but starting out with a position that is divorced from reality and ignores real issues is dumb. Inconvenient things like infra required to support and maintain them, which is already a critical factor for the existing fleet, is another reality. Also people required to actually support and sustain ships in the 2nd and 3rd line is another critical shortage.

That way we wouldn't run into the same critical chokepoints that will stop us from being able to effectively operate AOPs, JSS, RCD and the subs which is people and expertise. Even if we built them overseas we don't have people now unless we park the frigates, but ships are a massive capitol investment with a huge support tail in service, and really not convinced we can't get the same capability quicker and more effectively with air and land assets.

Isn’t it a bit early to say that we don’t have the people to crew them 8-12yrs into the future?
At this point we, as a country, have no idea if the substantial pay/incentive/pension increases that are set to go into place in the next 2ish months for the CAF will or will not result in a large enough increase in personnel to address the needs of an expanded RCN, Army and RCAF.
Saying that we don’t have the personnel now for something that won’t occur 10yrs out is shooting ourselves in the foot.

 

[McG]

But what, other than pay, is the utility of C that couldn't be served by a CT

Going RegF puts a person on the RegF pension from day 1, which would destroy the retirement plans of a public servant or RCMP (and thus discourage them from deploying in support of operations).

Also training standards are not the same between components. Class C allows employment of a reservist on operations with only mission specific delta training before employment (even into operations), but a component transfer will immediately necessitate full delta training before deployment.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Isn’t it a bit early to say that we don’t have the people to crew them 8-12yrs into the future?
At this point we, as a country, have no idea if the substantial pay/incentive/pension increases that are set to go into place in the next 2ish months for the CAF will or will not result in a large enough increase in personnel to address the needs of an expanded RCN, Army and RCAF.
Saying that we don’t have the personnel now for something that won’t occur 10yrs out is shooting ourselves in the foot.

No, it absolutely isn't, when a very significant portion of the crew takes 5-10 years to train (with senior people in the 15 year timeframe), infra takes 5-10 years to build, and ships take 10 years to design, build and deliver.

The lead time for building ship capabilities is much longer then army or air force, as it's an entire weapon system, operations center that is mobile and deployable for sustained periods, in an environment that only isn't actively trying to kill you because you are irrelevant against the sheer power of the ocean and weather.

Technology has improved capabilities immensely since WW2, but also means you can't slap some weapons on a trawler, grab a crew and expect them to be effective with a few months training. If you want cheap and fast, keep it simple, and keep it on land or in the air.

 

[Czech_pivo]

No, it absolutely isn't, when a very significant portion of the crew takes 5-10 years to train (with senior people in the 15 year timeframe), infra takes 5-10 years to build, and ships take 10 years to design, build and deliver.

The lead time for building ship capabilities is much longer then army or air force, as it's an entire weapon system, operations center that is mobile and deployable for sustained periods, in an environment that only isn't actively trying to kill you because you are irrelevant against the sheer power of the ocean and weather.

Technology has improved capabilities immensely since WW2, but also means you can't slap some weapons on a trawler, grab a crew and expect them to be effective with a few months training. If you want cheap and fast, keep it simple, and keep it on land or in the air.

So the expressed opinion and view of the top of the RCN is completely offside and unreasonable?

 

[Navy_Pete]

So the expressed opinion and view of the top of the RCN is completely offside and unreasonable?

There is no coherent plan to address the myriad personnel shortfalls that even the most optimistic projections show will impact us running up to 6 AOPs, 2 JSS and 15 RCDs, plus 8-12 subs on just the people on the ship side, let alone the 2nd line maintenance, 3rd line maintenance, LCMM etc side of things.

So in that context, yes, it's unreasonable to add on a whole new class on top of that. You could call the current plan to run 15 RCDs and 12 subs aspirational, this is delusional.

But the corvettes are a solution looking for a problem that the GoC hasn't said exists and frankly is a distraction from what's already a huge challenge that we are losing focus on.

 

[IKnowNothing]

There is no coherent plan to address the myriad personnel shortfalls that even the most optimistic projections show will impact us running up to 6 AOPs, 2 JSS and 15 RCDs, plus 8-12 subs on just the people on the ship siide

If the interpretation is to take delivery of the first CDC in 10 years, is that more accurately 6 AOPS, 2 JSS, hopefully 3 maybe 4 RCD's, hopefully 2-4 subs, while still relying the rusted out hulks of whatever CPF's are still seaworthy?

 

[Czech_pivo]

If the interpretation is to take delivery of the first CDC in 10 years, is that more accurately 6 AOPS, 2 JSS, hopefully 3 maybe 4 RCD's, hopefully 2-4 subs, while still relying the rusted out hulks of whatever CPF's are still seaworthy?

I would assume that X number of the 12 Halifax’s would be gone 10yrs out.

So, based on the above and the post from ‘Iknownothing’, what will be the potential net increase in personnel that would be required 10yrs in the future?
250?
450?
800?
1100?
1400?


Do the 6 AOPS cancel out the 12 Kingstons in terms of personnel?
Do the 3 or 4 Rivers require more, less or equal the number of personnel that 3 or 4 Halifax’s do?
Do the 2-4 subs require more, less or equal our current personnel for the Vic’s?
The 2 JSS are ‘net new’ for certain and that’s 400 not including air crew and only 1 crew per ship.

 

[MilEME09]

Sounds like Topshee wants us ready for war, but recruiting and his own training establishment won't keep up with whats desired

 

[Colin Parkinson]

There is no coherent plan to address the myriad personnel shortfalls that even the most optimistic projections show will impact us running up to 6 AOPs, 2 JSS and 15 RCDs, plus 8-12 subs on just the people on the ship side, let alone the 2nd line maintenance, 3rd line maintenance, LCMM etc side of things.

So in that context, yes, it's unreasonable to add on a whole new class on top of that. You could call the current plan to run 15 RCDs and 12 subs aspirational, this is delusional.

But the corvettes are a solution looking for a problem that the GoC hasn't said exists and frankly is a distraction from what's already a huge challenge that we are losing focus on.

The concept of the subs I heard, is 3 at sea and 3 working up and the others in various stages of maintenance, so at the most 6 subs need crewing at one time.

 

[dapaterson]

Sounds like Topshee wants us ready for war, but recruiting and his own training establishment won't keep up with whats desired

Some of the training issues are RCN own-goals.

Amalgamating their technical trades into a single one has failed, just like it failed when tried in other navies, and just like how RCAF tech trades were merged then unmerged.

There seems to be an indecent obsession among "operational" occupations in culling enablers, then wondering why they can't accomplish their missions.

 

[IKnowNothing]

@Navy_Pete

Posted prematurely, continuing here.

So if we assume

1. a 2035 combatant fleet of 3RCD + 3 CPS + x CPF
2. That there is a distinctly non zero potential for x = 0, and a good chance for x <4

My questions (with uninformed civvy answers)
A. Is this a viable/acceptable combatant fleet for a G7 nation? (No)
B. Does this point/range in time present a choke point that will inhibit scaling to the fleet of 2045? (Yes)

Then I think, if I'm Topshee looking at that timeline, and coupling it with the change in geopolitical reality and need for increased (weaponized) artic sovereignty, continental defense), that I might be quietly making the hard decision that the country cant afford to wait for the last 3 RCD's and as am not planning for 6+2+15+12+8

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Sounds like Topshee wants us ready for war, but recruiting and his own training establishment won't keep up with whats desired

I think Topshee, Carignan, and Wright all want to have us ready for war.

The issue is that DND and the CAF aren't designed or equipped to have us ready for war. Our ability to equip, train, and sustain forces was always based on having time on our side. We clearly don't have time on our side, and now we see the machine working against our aims.

 

[MilEME09]

I think Topshee, Carignan, and Wright all want to have us ready for war.

The issue is that DND and the CAF aren't designed or equipped to have us ready for war. Our ability to equip, train, and sustain forces was always based on having time on our side. We clearly don't have time on our side, and now we see the machine working against our aims.

Just like every other time, we will have ti make do with what we have got at the start. However having a plan already on the books does give us a leg up

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm thinking its more Fentynol. That's a dissasociative drug.

I think we have the talent to design for sure. Not sure if we have the capacity to build that fast. And people is where the drugs come in.

Edit: on re-reading the arcticle I'm not sure if they meant we'll start building in 10 years or want them in 10 years. Probably want them in 10 years.

Thoroughly appreciative of the sense of urgency being demonstrated.