I'll believe it when I see it.
Suck/Blow principle- often forgotten or never learned by highersBusinesses wouldn't give people Lada funding then demand Lambourghini performance (without quickly failing as a business).
When you have $300M+ of work for a refit of known work, and get a lot less then that, you can't expect no operational impact. That's per ship btw (which is insane, but happens when you consistently underfund dockings for 30 years).
For context, they are doing about 4-5 times as much known work compared to the 280s at end of life at 40ish years at the 25-30 year mark, and get much more arising work, on a strictly hourly work LOE basis (which is about the best apples to apples comparison you can make).
The GoC wants us to do all these deployments, then give us the money (and time) to build up to that. Or don't massively ratchet up RCN ops tempo (when it was already unsustainable). Can't do both.
According to the CDS we can't even continue to maintain the 3 ships on the pacific we have. Media should be making a bigger deal of that, we can't up OP tempo, turn Latvia into a brigade, and cut budget without effecting everythingExcept the RCN cannot and knows they cannot employ a dozen FFH in the lead up to CSC. A rational organization would move to 8-9 platforms and divest the rest, saving hundreds of millions along the way.
If you don't plan for the ships now, when the time comes that you need them, you won't have them. We should have learned that lesson in WWI and WWII, but Canada is a slow learner.Except the RCN cannot and knows they cannot employ a dozen FFH in the lead up to CSC. A rational organization would move to 8-9 platforms and divest the rest, saving hundreds of millions along the way.
So, Privateering and Letters of Marque then?According to the CDS we can't even continue to maintain the 3 ships on the pacific we have. Media should be making a bigger deal of that, we can't up OP tempo, turn Latvia into a brigade, and cut budget without effecting everything
I am not saying to shrink the CSC buy; I am saying that the RCN will not be in a position to crew and operate sufficient FFH to need a dozen hulls between now and when CSC #1 hits the water.If you don't plan for the ships now, when the time comes that you need them, you won't have them. We should have learned that lesson in WWI and WWII, but Canada is a slow learner.
Understood.I am not saying to shrink the CSC buy; I am saying that the RCN will not be in a position to crew and operate sufficient FFH to need a dozen hulls between now and when CSC #1 hits the water.
I am not saying to shrink the CSC buy; I am saying that the RCN will not be in a position to crew and operate sufficient FFH to need a dozen hulls between now and when CSC #1 hits the water.
Understood.
Divesting a few of the most worn out CPFs makes too much sense.
And won't the RCN have 15 years or more to rebuild its personman-power? It is going to take that long to get all the CSCs into the fleet.
Given that we continue to lose people faster then we can recruit them, and then can't train/retain enough, and have been trending that way for 20 years, is that reasonable?And won't the RCN have 15 years or more to rebuild its man-power? It is going to take that long to get all the CSCs into the fleet.
This meme is not accurate. Canada has slid backwards, not stayed the same.
Fortunately that decision will be taken out of RCN hands when ships start to self-retire in the next 5-10 years or so. I don't think a lot of them will make it to the first CSC being delivered, let alone last until the 15th.I am not saying to shrink the CSC buy; I am saying that the RCN will not be in a position to crew and operate sufficient FFH to need a dozen hulls between now and when CSC #1 hits the water.
Fortunately that decision will be taken out of RCN hands when ships start to self-retire in the next 5-10 years or so. I don't think a lot of them will make it to the first CSC being delivered, let alone last until the 15th.
lol, without the 'K' part of the SSK I guess.One-time one-way unforecast FFH to SSK conversion.
lol, without the 'K' part of the SSK I guess.
"You go to war with the army you have ..."If you don't plan for the ships now, when the time comes that you need them, you won't have them. We should have learned that lesson in WWI and WWII, but Canada is a slow learner.
The leap in technology is a huge difference here; our entire WW2 fleet could be wiped out by our current fleet, even in it's fairly sad state, and they wouldn't even see it coming for the most part. I think an army equivalent would be training a spear phalanx and marching them against a machine gun nest."You go to war with the army you have ..."
The big difference is that in WW2 one could crank out a ship pretty quickly compared to today. On the other hand WW2 was over in a short six years. The Cold War is now in its 8th decade and heating up again.
It's the lulls in between - those periods when everyone calls for a peace dividend - that throws everything out of whack.
That and having playboy leaders and their imbecile advisors who haven't a clue as to how the world really functions and only concern themselves with the next election and not what's best for the country's security and prosperity.