• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Our North - SSE Policy Update Megathread

How does it work in other navies? RAN, RNZN, RN, USN, and NATO navies. They all have rotary air in their perview and in many cases all Maritime Patrol Aircraft as well.

There are positions that are equivalent in the ladder that are identified which any stripe of naval officer can move through. In the US their equivalent of Combat Systems Engineers can become CO's as well as pilots. If you pass your command exams and do the command course does it matter? Its just that command exams and command course isn't offered to Engineers or Pilots right now, you could easily offer it to them. Would they have a hard time passing? Hell yah, there is a lot of navigation involved.

Perhaps only certain ships can have pilots as CO's, ones where air operations are more important and control of navigation responsibilities are delegated to a wet officer on a more permanent basis instead of an adhoc one like with current RCN ships.

Getting totally off topic here, but:

AFAIK other navies (other than the USN) don’t have their naval aircrew also have the same command track as ship COs - maybe the RN is different. USN MPRA aircrew don’t command ships - the land-based USN folks and the sea-based USN folks might as well be two separate services. They will do a tour on a carrier as something but sqn command, Wing command, etc is different.

Frankly I don’t see the need for MH aircrew to become ship COs, like I don’t see the need for Tac Hel aircrew to become Bn COs. We already have the sqns separate from the ships / army formations. I just see a lot of teething and culture pain and a bunch of people (mostly in the air side) wondering why things are changing. I can sort of see it from “tradition” but it imposes some second-order issues.

Edit to add:

Example: Say you are someone wanting to fly something in the CAF. You go to CFRC - would you know what you want to fly already? If you’re in the US, Australia, etc then you’d have to know already, because (say in Australia’s case) if you want to fly helicopters, you have to be in the Army or the Navy, which have different training pipelines. In the RCAF, all pilots go through the same pipeline until Phase 3 (for good or bad) but if one fails out of Fighters, for example, they can just switch to Helicopters or whatever. In the other countries listed, they would change services. It’s not the end of the world but having all flying things under the RCAF means that aircrew all join as one service.

This then brings about another thought experiment - does the CAF then enroll all pilots, ACSOs, AES Ops, Flight Engineers, etc as RCAF and then if they go to the Tac Hel, Mar Hel, or potentially LRP, they switch uniforms to RCN or CA? How about the techs who don’t necessarily know what fleet they join until after CFSATE?
 
experiment - does the CAF then enroll all pilots, ACSOs, AES Ops, Flight Engineers, etc as RCAF and then if they go to the Tac Hel, Mar Hel, or potentially LRP, they switch uniforms to RCN or CA? How about the techs who don’t necessarily know what fleet they join until after CFSATE?
Clearly we need to triple the number of schools and support staff to enable that split.
 
Getting totally off topic here, but:

AFAIK other navies (other than the USN) don’t have their naval aircrew also have the same command track as ship COs - maybe the RN is different. USN MPRA aircrew don’t command ships - the land-based USN folks and the sea-based USN folks might as well be two separate services. They will do a tour on a carrier as something but sqn command, Wing command, etc is different.

Frankly I don’t see the need for MH aircrew to become ship COs, like I don’t see the need for Tac Hel aircrew to become Bn COs. We already have the sqns separate from the ships / army formations. I just see a lot of teething and culture pain and a bunch of people (mostly in the air side) wondering why things are changing. I can sort of see it from “tradition” but it imposes some second-order issues.

Edit to add:

Example: Say you are someone wanting to fly something in the CAF. You go to CFRC - would you know what you want to fly already? If you’re in the US, Australia, etc then you’d have to know already, because (say in Australia’s case) if you want to fly helicopters, you have to be in the Army or the Navy, which have different training pipelines. In the RCAF, all pilots go through the same pipeline until Phase 3 (for good or bad) but if one fails out of Fighters, for example, they can just switch to Helicopters or whatever. In the other countries listed, they would change services. It’s not the end of the world but having all flying things under the RCAF means that aircrew all join as one service.

This then brings about another thought experiment - does the CAF then enroll all pilots, ACSOs, AES Ops, Flight Engineers, etc as RCAF and then if they go to the Tac Hel, Mar Hel, or potentially LRP, they switch uniforms to RCN or CA? How about the techs who don’t necessarily know what fleet they join until after CFSATE?

The problem is not teaching people to fly.

The issues we are starting to see is a lack of tactical employment knowledge; a lack of tactics development and a lack of staffing for new requirements, because, the RCN doesn’t understand stand Maritime Air Doctrine anymore and the RCAF does not care.
 
The problem is not teaching people to fly.

The issues we are starting to see is a lack of tactical employment knowledge; a lack of tactics development and a lack of staffing for new requirements, because, the RCN doesn’t understand stand Maritime Air Doctrine anymore and the RCAF does not care.
There has always been a need for the closest integration of naval air and the fleet. The loss of the naval aviation was a disaster.... is a disaster.
The same can be said of the Army.
 
The UK considers its two carriers to be "national assets" and both the RN Naval Air Arm and the RAF fly F35-B's and EH-101's from them.

Seems to me that as a unified service in Canada, we should be able to figure out how to do this.

Personally, I could see a system where F35-B pilots would start under the RCAF's umbrella and do a tour as junior pilots in an embarked squadron, then a second tour as a senior pilot, at which point in their career, they would have to elect to go on with the RCAF as "RCAF" based pilots making their way up into a squadron-wing-group, air general etc. progression, or elect to switch to the RCN leading to a "conversion" course to get their watchkeeping certificate, followed by a naval air squadron command onboard the carrier, then a tour as commander air group of the carrier, followed by command of the carrier, and on to flag officer if warranted.

Such a system would re-introduce knowledge of air operations into the fleet while relying on the strength of the RCAF in developing fighter pilots, while providing admirals from "both" sides of the equation in time (surface warfare or air) and providing the RCAF with a knowledge base in naval air strike.

In time, I can also see that the election to switch element could be done earlier, say between first and second tour at sea, for pilots identified as "up-and-coming" that would already have made up their mind.

P.S. I can see such system also being applied to the rotary wing side of the RCAF/RCN combo.
 


China and Russia pushing the limits on Svalbard


Russo-Chinese Pyramiden is about 750 nautical miles from Alert


“Russia feels like a tornado, something in your face that you have to react to,” said Hedvig Moe, who was deputy director of PST, the security agency, until May 2023 and is now a counsel at Oslo-based law firm Thommessen. “China is like climate change, it is slower, it is happening over time,” said Moe, who grew up on Svalbard. “But one day you might wake up and think, oh my God, look at what happened here.”



Russia and China Defy the West Deep in the Arctic​

The Svalbard archipelago has become a critical steppingstone for projecting power across one of the world’s most sensitive regions​


By Georgi Kantchev
Follow

SVALBARD, Norway—Nestled high above the Arctic Circle, the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard is home to hundreds of polar bears and boasts prime views of the Northern Lights.

Now the territory of fewer than 3,000 people is emerging as a front line in Russia and China’s attempts to dominate the Arctic’s trade routes and expand their military presence in the region at the expense of the West.

Formally part of Norway, Svalbard—a collection of mountains, glaciers and fjords about the size of West Virginia—has an unusual status. A treaty signed in 1920 granted the Norwegians sovereignty but allowed signatory states, including the Soviet Union, to exploit resources and conduct research.

But in recent years this quirk has provided a way for Moscow and Beijing to strengthen their foothold in the Arctic as tensions with the West worsened over the invasion of Ukraine, unsettling Norway and its allies in NATO.

In one recent example, a Chinese delegation last month traveled to Svalbard to meet Russian officials. On the agenda: an abandoned Russian settlement on the archipelago called Pyramiden. Once a bustling Soviet coal mining community, Pyramiden is now a ghost town, its empty streets patrolled by white Arctic foxes. Now Russia wants to revive it by building a research center with China and by attracting tourists to what one local Russian employee called a “Soviet Disneyland.”


Since the war, Russia has held a military-style parade, illegally erected an Orthodox cross and issued a stark warning to Norway not to challenge Russia on Svalbard. Earlier this month, a Russian lawmaker proposed building a prison for terrorists there. Just a month before the invasion, Norwegian officials suspected Russian involvement in a severed undersea fiber-optic cable near Svalbard.

Norwegian officials, meanwhile, report a growing Chinese interest in acquiring land on the archipelago, including a recent proposal to establish a laser-research station. Svalbard has become an increasingly important espionage target for both China and Russia, they say, with Norwegian companies advising employees to turn off their phones when traveling to Russian-controlled dwellings.

“We are seeing the return of geopolitical competition in the Arctic and Svalbard is a key piece of the puzzle,” said Norway’s Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide in an interview.

Trade routes and oil​

The competition for Svalbard is emblematic of the intensifying global race for the Arctic. The region contains up to a fifth of the world’s untapped oil and natural-gas reserves, as well as other minerals. As the ice melts, Moscow and Beijing want to use the shorter Northern Sea Route to ship goods via the Arctic, avoiding chokepoints at the Suez Canal and Malacca Strait.


Russia has reopened dozens of Soviet military bases in the Arctic. China, which declared itself a “near-Arctic” nation in 2018 despite being some 900 miles from the Arctic Circle, is building new icebreakers.


Moscow’s invasion has been a catalyst for two Arctic states—Sweden and Finland—to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The U.S., meanwhile, is trying to catch up. A lack of icebreakers has limited its ability to operate in the region.

“We expect a great power competition in this area,” said Anne Marie Aanerud, state secretary at Norway’s Ministry of Defense.

The Russian consul on Svalbard, Andrei Chemerilo, said the importance of the Arctic is “difficult to overestimate,” given the region’s resources and trade routes. He said that Moscow was focused on preserving the Arctic as a peaceful territory.

On Svalbard, Chemerilo said, “we note the growing interest of representatives of the People’s Republic of China in the archipelago and in developing scientific cooperation.”


China’s Foreign Ministry didn’t respond to requests for comment.


Svalbard sits at the tip of the Bear Gap, a critical maritime thoroughfare between mainland Norway and the archipelago. Crucial for trade, it also lies to the north of the Kola Peninsula, which houses Russia’s Northern Fleet, including most of its nuclear submarines. With Russia’s land forces stretched by the war in Ukraine, Moscow relies more heavily on the Northern Fleet and its nuclear forces for deterrence, officials said.

Norway’s Eide said that in a conflict Russia may attempt to block the Bear Gap to prevent U.S. ships from entering from the West. In a drill last year, Russia showcased its capacity to block allied access by deploying vessels to strategic positions. This past June, Russian nuclear submarines practiced firing missiles at targets in the nearby Barents Sea.


SVALBARD4-_700px.jpg



“We’re not in that situation now, but they will be planning for that, and so we need to plan how to counter it,” Eide said.

Norway this year significantly boosted its military spending plans, investing in everything from new submarines that can last longer underwater to surveillance drones to new space capabilities to monitor the Arctic. It shares more intelligence on the region with the U.S. On Svalbard, Norwegian police are now a more frequent presence in Russian settlements as a show of force, a Norwegian official said.

In past decades it was coal mining, not geopolitics, that drew people to Svalbard.



Russia closed the loss-making Pyramiden operation in 1998 but still mines in the town of Barentsburg. That business, too, is unprofitable but the Russian state subsidizes it to keep its beachhead on Svalbard, Norwegian officials say. Chemerilo, the consul, said that Russia didn’t need to establish itself on Svalbard since “Russia was, is and will be on the archipelago.”

Suspicions of sabotage​

More recently, the officials say, Russia has graduated beyond mining.

A Russian fishing trawler was suspected of intentionally severing an essential internet cable linking Svalbard in January 2022 after crisscrossing more than 100 times over the exact cut site. While Norwegian authorities haven’t officially reached a conclusion, security officials believe the damage was deliberate.

“It was a pretty major signal that they can do anything they want,” said the Norwegian official. “For us, it clearly showed the vulnerabilities.”

Chemerilo said that it was unclear what the charges were and what the Russian government had to do with it.

Last year, Russia held what Norwegian officials describe as a militaristic parade on Barentsburg, something never before seen on Svalbard, where “warlike” activities are specifically prohibited by the 1920 treaty. Some 50 vehicles, including trucks, tractors and snowmobiles, moved through a town of 300 people, many of whom waved Russian flags. Russia was fined for unauthorized use of a Mi-8 helicopter, which flew overhead.

Later, Russian officials erected a giant Orthodox cross in Pyramiden, also violating Svalbard’s regulations. This year, they hoisted Soviet flags in Barentsburg and Pyramiden, including on a coal-loading crane in the Pyramiden harbor where a Norwegian flag used to fly.

Chemerilo denied Russia was involved in any provocative actions on Svalbard.



In February, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Trutnev warned Norway to respect Russian rights on Svalbard before invoking the war in Ukraine.

“Today, our fighters are shedding blood for the sovereignty of our country,” Trutnev said. “The work here is also a fight for our sovereignty, a fight for the rights of Russia and Russians.”



The Ministry of Defense’s Aanerud said that with these actions, Russia is “trying to probe, to test Norway and its NATO allies.”

China, meanwhile, operates a research station in the northern settlement of Ny-Ålesund called Yellow River. Norwegian officials are concerned about the possible military applications of research conducted there.

One of the organizations there is called the China Research Institute of Radio Wave Propagation, itself part of CETC, a state military electronics enterprise calling itself the “main force in China’s military electronics industry.” CETC says on its website that the institute “provides technological support and service guarantees for national defense.” On its official WeChat account, the institute often references its military links, with one post saying that it has a “mission of serving the country and strengthening the military through science and technology.”

CETC didn’t respond to a request for comment.

In July, the Norwegian government blocked a plan to sell a piece of land for over $300 million amid worries it might be acquired by China. Chinese actors have tried to purchase other land, Norwegian officials said, and have proposed setting up a station to research lidar, which uses lasers to create 3-D maps that can be used for self-driving cars or military applications.

And across the Barents Sea, Chinese shipping companies have expressed interest in expanding the Norwegian port of Kirkenes near the Russian border.

PST, Norway’s domestic intelligence and security agency, said in a report that “Chinese research activities on Svalbard can help normalize a Chinese presence, facilitating intelligence activities.”

There are increasing signs that Beijing and Moscow are joining forces.

Following the invasion of Ukraine, Russia and China have deepened their Arctic ties, from Chinese energy investments to security links. Last year, the Chinese coast guard agreed to strengthen law-enforcement cooperation with Russia’s FSB security service. In August, a Chinese icebreaker for the first time paid a visit to Murmansk on the Kola Peninsula.

Russia’s research-center plan in Pyramiden is a further steppingstone.​


Once populated by over 1,000 people, the town, which hosts the world’s northernmost Lenin statue, has since been largely frozen in time. A KGB outpost with soundproof rooms and furnaces for burning documents remains sealed.

Russia wants to revive the abandoned mining town of Pyramiden by building a research center with China.

On a recent afternoon, a small group of tourists shuffled down the abandoned streets as a Russian guide carried a rifle to protect against polar bears that now roam the town. The eerie quiet was punctured only by bird screeches from a former miners’ dorm now known as the Birds House for its new inhabitants. A small gift shop sold Matryoshka dolls and “Back to U.S.S.R.” T-shirts. A cafe serves a powerful 78% alcoholic drink known as “The See You Tomorrow.”

Russian officials have said they expect work on the research center to start this year. Though research activities are generally allowed under the Svalbard treaty, Norway isn’t enthused about the idea. According to a Norwegian official, it would be difficult to monitor what happens there.

“We are not so happy about it,” Foreign Minister Eide said. “We want research on Svalbard to be conducted in the facilities that we provide.”

The Hiorthfjellet mountain sits north of Longyearbyen.
Norwegian officials say that while China doesn’t appear to be an immediate security threat in the region, it is building its capabilities for the future.

“Russia feels like a tornado, something in your face that you have to react to,” said Hedvig Moe, who was deputy director of PST, the security agency, until May 2023 and is now a counsel at Oslo-based law firm Thommessen. “China is like climate change, it is slower, it is happening over time,” said Moe, who grew up on Svalbard. “But one day you might wake up and think, oh my God, look at what happened here.”

Among Svalbard’s residents, the recent surge in geopolitical attention on the archipelago, a community historically known for its peaceful coexistence, has brought about a sense of unease.
 
The USAAF/USAF tried to use that myth to sink the USN carrier fleet.
They failed.


The “revolt” was an effort by Navy officers—not just admirals, either, as then–Captain Arleigh Burke was deeply implicated—in 1949 to oust Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson, whom they viewed as hostile to the Navy, particularly its carrier aviation capability. There were two stages to the revolt. In the first, a civilian employee of the Navy (and a naval reservist) fabricated and then leaked to a sympathetic congressman (a retired reservist) an “Anonymous Document” accusing Johnson and Air Force Secretary Stuart Symington of corruption for favoring the procurement of the B-36 heavy bomber. Navy officers were opposed to the Air Force and Army’s preferred wartime strategy of relying on strategic bombing to deter or halt a Soviet invasion of Western Europe and feared that resources for a strategic-bombing force would come at the expense of the Navy—specifically its carriers. The publication of the “Anonymous Document” inspired congressional hearings in August that vindicated Johnson and Symington, as well as embarrassed the Navy.

In the second stage, a Navy officer attached to the Joint Staff upped the ante by releasing internal Navy correspondence alleging that Johnson’s policies—including the cancellation of the first “supercarrier” [USS United States (CVA-58)] back in April—were harmful to the Navy’s morale and detrimental to national security. This exposé led to another round of hearings in October, in which senior Navy officers publicly broke with Secretary Johnson and Navy Secretary Francis Matthews and criticized the current fetish for strategic bombing as immoral and ineffective.
I seem to recall that the RAF on the other hand succeeded in using the argument to sink the RN's carrier fleet, leading to the cancellation of the plans for the original Queen Elizabeth class carriers in 1966 and the eventual scrapping of Eagle and Ark Royal.
 
I seem to recall that the RAF on the other hand succeeded in using the argument to sink the RN's carrier fleet, leading to the cancellation of the plans for the original Queen Elizabeth class carriers in 1966 and the eventual scrapping of Eagle and Ark Royal.
In fairness, the UK was stepping back from patrolling an empire then, while the Americans were stepping into the imperial role.
 
How does it work in other navies? RAN, RNZN, RN, USN, and NATO navies. They all have rotary air in their perview and in many cases all Maritime Patrol Aircraft as well.

There are positions that are equivalent in the ladder that are identified which any stripe of naval officer can move through. In the US their equivalent of Combat Systems Engineers can become CO's as well as pilots. If you pass your command exams and do the command course does it matter? Its just that command exams and command course isn't offered to Engineers or Pilots right now, you could easily offer it to them. Would they have a hard time passing? Hell yah, there is a lot of navigation involved.

Perhaps only certain ships can have pilots as CO's, ones where air operations are more important and control of navigation responsibilities are delegated to a wet officer on a more permanent basis instead of an adhoc one like with current RCN ships.
We must have had some system in place when the RCN had naval aviation since Admiral Falls was both a navy flyer (admittedly having earned his wings in the RCAF) and a CO of ships including Bonnie.
 
In fairness, the UK was stepping back from patrolling an empire then, while the Americans were stepping into the imperial role.
True enough although my understanding is that part of the RAF argument was that they could operate from some of those imperial outposts, like Diego Garcia.
 
The UK considers its two carriers to be "national assets" and both the RN Naval Air Arm and the RAF fly F35-B's and EH-101's from them.

Seems to me that as a unified service in Canada, we should be able to figure out how to do this.

Personally, I could see a system where F35-B pilots would start under the RCAF's umbrella and do a tour as junior pilots in an embarked squadron, then a second tour as a senior pilot, at which point in their career, they would have to elect to go on with the RCAF as "RCAF" based pilots making their way up into a squadron-wing-group, air general etc. progression, or elect to switch to the RCN leading to a "conversion" course to get their watchkeeping certificate, followed by a naval air squadron command onboard the carrier, then a tour as commander air group of the carrier, followed by command of the carrier, and on to flag officer if warranted.

Such a system would re-introduce knowledge of air operations into the fleet while relying on the strength of the RCAF in developing fighter pilots, while providing admirals from "both" sides of the equation in time (surface warfare or air) and providing the RCAF with a knowledge base in naval air strike.

In time, I can also see that the election to switch element could be done earlier, say between first and second tour at sea, for pilots identified as "up-and-coming" that would already have made up their mind.

P.S. I can see such system also being applied to the rotary wing side of the RCAF/RCN combo.
I'll contend that there is no need for pilots in a renewed RCN Fleet Air Arm to be ship's COs. Currently there is no way for a CSEO, MSEO, IntO, or LogO to become a ship's Captain, why would Pilots be different?

There will be Sqns that need COs, as well as lots of other shore based positions for people to move up through a succession management plan without having to make all RCN officers eligible for CO of a ship.
 
MSEO, CSEO, LogO and IntO do not fight the ship. They are not warfare officers. Pilots on an aircraft carrier are. They not only "fight" the ship, they are the primary weapon. A carrier captain must have an intimate understanding of naval air warfare and an admiral fighting a carrier group must also have an intimate understanding of naval air warfare or be supported by someone who does.

When the Americans found themselves having to fight WWII in the Pacific with carriers instead of "big gun" ships, Admiral King insisted (nay! decreed) that any admiral in command of a carrier group that was not an aviator (such as Spruance) must have an aviator as his chief of staff and any who was an aviator (such as Mishner) must have a chief of staff from the surface warfare community. He was proven right again and again in this decision. And remember, the chiefs of staffs at issue here are admirals themselves.
 
MSEO, CSEO, LogO and IntO do not fight the ship. They are not warfare officers. Pilots on an aircraft carrier are. They not only "fight" the ship, they are the primary weapon. A carrier captain must have an intimate understanding of naval air warfare and an admiral fighting a carrier group must also have an intimate understanding of naval air warfare or be supported by someone who does.

When the Americans found themselves having to fight WWII in the Pacific with carriers instead of "big gun" ships, Admiral King insisted (nay! decreed) that any admiral in command of a carrier group that was not an aviator (such as Spruance) must have an aviator as his chief of staff and any who was an aviator (such as Mishner) must have a chief of staff from the surface warfare community. He was proven right again and again in this decision. And remember, the chiefs of staffs at issue here are admirals themselves.
I can’t remember where I saw it (it may be on here) that there was (maybe still is?) some backlash to how the aviators were running the USN…
 
Back
Top