Our North - SSE Policy Update Megathread

[dimsum]

Only because they decided at the last minute they wanted nuclear instead, not because of any issues with the subs.

The French were going to convert an existing SSN to an SSK, which they haven’t done before.

There is no way that it won’t have issues during the conversion process.

 

[FJAG]

Only because they decided at the last minute they wanted nuclear instead, not because of any issues with the subs.

Yes there were. Costs were rising and they weren't nuclear albeit the French versions will be. French nuclear subs have a propulsion system that requires refueling every ten years while US/UK subs are fueled for the life of the boat.

 

[Maxman1]

The French were going to convert an existing SSN to an SSK, which they haven’t done before.

There is no way that it won’t have issues during the conversion process.

Yes there were. Costs were rising and they weren't nuclear albeit the French versions will be. French nuclear subs have a propulsion system that requires refueling every ten years while US/UK subs are fueled for the life of the boat.

Yes, and Australia wanted them built in Australia, which means investing hundreds of millions or even billions to build up the shipyards to build submarines.

The non-weapons grade uranium requiring refueling every decade, which would require a nuclear industry that Australia doesn't have, was also a major factor in going with American and British subs that require refueling after 33 years, but are expected to have a service life of 33 years.

And remember that The Netherlands has chosen the same design, so it won't be an orphan fleet, and we won't be shouldering the full R&D costs.

 

[FJAG]

Murray Brewster on defence policies

Shooting blanks: Why so many Canadian defence policies fail to launch​

Defence policies tend to warn of a world in chaos — this time, the warning was particularly stark​

Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: Apr 13, 2024 4:00 AM EDT

I finally found a catchphrase to describe my view of the government's defence bureaucracy:

"What keeps me up at night — with the state of the world and what we need to do — is something I've been calling harmful bureaucracy," Eyre said in an interview late Friday with CBC News.

"Because that will inhibit our ability to implement this policy. It will slow us down. It'll be the molasses that does not allow us to proceed apace."

 

[FSTO]

^^
FRP has FUBARD the CAF more than any other policy implemented by Liberals or Conservatives.

 

[Halifax Tar]

^^
FRP has FUBARD the CAF more than any other policy implemented by Liberals or Conservatives.

I got in in the late 90s. I still think morale was lower then. It was a bitter bitter group when I joined.

 

[Remius]

I got in in the late 90s. I still think morale was lower then. It was a bitter bitter group when I joined.

Mid 90s for me. I think the difference is more people are quitting and voting with their feet now than then. That tends to dilute the level of bitterness when it vacates. Back then they still stayed because they had no other choices or options likely increasing the bitterness levels lol.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Mid 90s for me. I think the difference is more people are quitting and voting with their feet now than then. That tends to dilute the level of bitterness when it vacates. Back then they still stayed because they had no other choices or options likely increasing the bitterness levels lol.

That's very true. I remember lots of very bitter Cpl/LS' who were just there for a pay cheque and a pension.

 

[MilEME09]

Unpopular opinion: we have tons of budget for personal because of how short we are. The reserve force is designed as a incase of emergency break glass. I'd argue time to break the glass. Use an OIC and on a rotating basis activate reserve units for a period of 1 year. 6 months work up under a reg force unit, 6 months deployment as part of the battle group to Latvia or somewhere. Short term it will give the reg force a temporary shot in the arm while we recruit and train more.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Yes, and Australia wanted them built in Australia, which means investing hundreds of millions or even billions to build up the shipyards to build submarines.

The non-weapons grade uranium requiring refueling every decade, which would require a nuclear industry that Australia doesn't have, was also a major factor in going with American and British subs that require refueling after 33 years, but are expected to have a service life of 33 years.

And remember that The Netherlands has chosen the same design, so it won't be an orphan fleet, and we won't be shouldering the full R&D costs.

I have no confidence in the French ability to deliver the non-nuke boat in any reasonable timeframe or budget. We could buy the very real and popular KS-III, right now.

 

[Remius]

Unpopular opinion: we have tons of budget for personal because of how short we are. The reserve force is designed as an incase of emergency break glass. I'd argue time to break the glass. Use an OIC and on a rotating basis activate reserve units for a period of 1 year. 6 months work up under a reg force unit, 6 months deployment as part of the battle group to Latvia or somewhere. Short term it will give the reg force a temporary shot in the arm while we recruit and train more.

Start small. Use it starting in April/May until Sept. that fits with the post secondary school year. Mobilise the PRES for all LENTUS Ops that we know are coming. Those that can DAG green for international ops get placed as well and rotated through,

 

[PuckChaser]

Start small. Use it starting in April/May until Sept. that fits with the post secondary school year. Mobilise the PRES for all LENTUS Ops that we know are coming. Those that can DAG green for international ops get placed as well and rotated through,

Sounds like a great task for FTSE...

 

[Remius]

Sounds like a great task for FTSE...

Yes. Assuming they can actually use FTSE effectively instead of a GD pool…experiences may vary i guess.

 

[PuckChaser]

It always seemed like a policy that was missing an estimate as to where everyone would be employed. Are folks still able to pick and choose where they work?

 

[Remius]

It always seemed like a policy that was missing an estimate as to where everyone would be employed. Are folks still able to pick and choose where they work?

To an extent. But it’s mostly dates when they can.

 

[MilEME09]

It always seemed like a policy that was missing an estimate as to where everyone would be employed. Are folks still able to pick and choose where they work?

Oh they try to, or they pull pin if sent somewhere they don't want. The Reserve force seems unwilling to enforce the 30 day notice for ending a class B contract.

 

[KevinB]

And yet the US forced countries like Germany and Japan to not actually have standing armies and said they would would take care of it.

You could argue that until the mid 50’s, but after that both Japan and Germany were free to create the Armed Forces they wanted.

It took Japan 80 years however to come to that conclusion.

They created the world we find ourselves in.

In favour of countries that would live to just roll in and take over. Look who he admires and made friends with.

Only one country ever, invoked article 5. Guess who that was?

Guess what non NATO countries sent troops —> Ukraine, Georgia.
Putin couldn’t stand that.

 

[FJAG]

I got in in the late 90s. I still think morale was lower then. It was a bitter bitter group when I joined.

I transferred to the RegF in 1969. By 1970 almost half of the artillery had to remuster to other trades or leave. No promotions to or within the senior NCO ranks for two to three years. No new recruits for 2 to 3 years. MBdrs doing a sergeant's job for an additional $5 per month than the bdrs they led (no WSE in those days). I can't do a qualitative comparison to the misery sufferd by the 1990s or today's crowd, but it was a crappy time.

Unpopular opinion: we have tons of budget for personal because of how short we are. The reserve force is designed as a incase of emergency break glass. I'd argue time to break the glass. Use an OIC and on a rotating basis activate reserve units for a period of 1 year. 6 months work up under a reg force unit, 6 months deployment as part of the battle group to Latvia or somewhere. Short term it will give the reg force a temporary shot in the arm while we recruit and train more.

You know how bullish I am on the PRes, but routine peacetime operations such as the ones we are talking about here are not an "emergency." Definitely not under the narrow NDA definition, but not even in common parlance.

What the RegF CAF is facing is a problem entirely within its own structure and policies - specifically a dysfunctional recruiting and training system. What's worse is that it has been a crisis years in the making that everyone could see coming and never adequately addressed. This didn't sneak up on anyone.

By all means look for more volunteer PRes folks. Even offer them one year tours in Latvia so as to cover two rotations without the need to predeployment train a replacement. Many young single PRes folks (especially unemployed ones) would jump at that. Then give them the option to immediately component transfer PRes to RegF in rank and trade without the need for additional courses/evaluations. Two birds with one stone.

Betcha it won't happen though.

 

[Furniture]

Babcock has a lot of engineering expertise to share with such a fledgling company, simulation software etc

I also suspect their expertise in navigating government contracting will be a massive help as well.

 

[dimsum]

I got in in the late 90s. I still think morale was lower then. It was a bitter bitter group when I joined.

I got in just before 9/11 and very few people thought there was a “real job” going on. One of my selling points to my parents was that we would never get into a shooting war