I just ran about a km with over 100lbs to get to my chalk briefing on our way to Op Harpoon. Had to treat a guy for a burned hand that’s way I was late
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
Just ignore me...I'm in a mood today.
Last edited by undercoverbrother; 09-15-2021 at 04:37 PM.
Could be here could be in the Federal Government thread. US, UK and Australia announcing a defense and intelligence sharing group that Canada is not invited into, to deal with China.
The Trudeau government has taken no significant steps on Huawei and we probably haven't been seen as all that serious when it comes to defense and all that serious when it comes to the intelligence side of the game. New Zealand another 5 eyes member was left out as well.
Basically there will be information on China shared in this group that won't be shared with us.
I dunno, I think you're reading a lot more into this announcement than what I have read. To me, this is nothing more than the USA sinking its hooks ever more into Australia so as to prepare for what looks like inevitable conflict with China.
Nuclear subs in of themselves are no big deal; they're just a platform. Any conventional weapons Australia would place on the subs would be (I assume, given the West's current technology arc) sub-sonic weapons that have easily been dispatched in the past three years by integrated and networked AD systems in Syria. So, nuclear subs with conventional sub-sonic weapons offer no leverage against the Chinese at this time. However, China will likely turn to Russia for assistance in improving their ASW capabilities.
The poor Aussies. They are probably weeping at the very idea of their dopey politicians continuing to screw up the submarine file. What started out as a $25B project, ballooned to $40B, then $50B and now $90B. Now they're going to dump it and start all over again for a platform they do not need.
Edit:
France is understandably upset. "This brutal, unilateral and unpredictable decision reminds me a lot of what Mr Trump used to do," Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told franceinfo radio. "I am angry and bitter. This isn't done between allies."
"It's a stab in the back. We created a relationship of trust with Australia and that trust has been broken," Le Drian said.
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
Last edited by Baron von Kriterium; 09-16-2021 at 06:55 AM.
Reason: Edit 1
The Following User Says Thank You to Baron von Kriterium For This Useful Post:
The military police investigation into whether retired Gen. Jonathan Vance broke code of service rules with an allegedly inappropriate relationship has officially ended with no charges, despite him currently facing a separate criminal charge of obstruction of justice in connection with the probe.
When pressed for an explanation as to why the probe into any possible military service violations ended on Aug. 6 with no charges, a military police spokesperson pointed to a recent report from former Supreme Court justice Morris Fish, which warned it was “legally impossible” under the current rules to try someone of Vance’s rank in the military system.
A senior defence source confirmed to Global News the decision to end the investigation without any military code of service charges was specifically tied to Vance’s rank as a four-star general.
To me, this is nothing more than the USA sinking its hooks ever more into Australia so as to prepare for what looks like inevitable conflict with China.
AUSMIN is a bilateral Australian/US commission and they released this today:
So, it looks like new Australia-United States military bases are on the horizon, which will include a naval component for sustaining combined submarines and surface fleet.
There will also be a major expansion of allied force posture initiatives to include AIR, LAND and SEA elements. Part of the focus on this expansion will be logistics, sustainment and maintenance, which are essential for the US position in SE Asia.
So, for those people bemoaning Canada was "left out" of AUKUS, I think this AUSMIN nugget just reinforces the notion that any Canadian participation is not necessary - not because we lack the tech know-how, but because we're not a player in that part of the world.
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
Basically they're saying, as a senior military member in leadership you're above the law military wise. What an awful thing.
I think most people knew/know the CDS is immune to a charge under the National Defence Act (NDA), even without Justice Fish's help. The CDS, however, is not immune to a charge under the Criminal Code of Canada.
The CDS is the highest rank. There isn't anyone with higher rank that can command or discipline him, from an NDA perspective. Even at that, it is still up to the MND and PM to not tolerate bad/unethical behaviour from a CDS and to act accordingly.
A few years ago, the Chief Military Judge was charged and I would have thought back then that the JAG would have recognized the complications in trying the CMJ and even the CDS and even three-star generals. Still nothing was done to rectify the problem. I'm not sure where the roadblocks are, but this file is the Minister's to correct.
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
The Following User Says Thank You to Baron von Kriterium For This Useful Post:
The Canadian government was surprised this week by the announcement of a new security pact between the United States, Britain and Australia, one that excluded Canada and is aimed at confronting China’s growing military and political influence in the Indo-Pacific region, according to senior government officials.
Three officials, representing Canada’s foreign affairs, intelligence and defence departments, told The Globe and Mail that Ottawa was not consulted about the pact, and had no idea the trilateral security announcement was coming until it was made on Wednesday by U.S. President Joe Biden, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison.
The defence ministers from the U.K. and Australia reached out to Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan to inform him of the decision shortly before the late-afternoon announcement. Foreign Affairs Minister Marc Garneau received a call from his Australian counterpart. Daniel Minden, a spokesperson for Mr. Sajjan, said Ottawa had been kept in the loop on talks between the countries.
One of the Canadian officials referred to the pact as the new “Three Eyes” and said it’s clear that Canada’s closest allies consider Ottawa to be a “weak sister” when it comes to standing up to China. The Globe and Mail is not identifying the officials because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
Quote:
Retired Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, who once commanded the Royal Canadian Navy, said Canada should have been part of this defence pact, which he described as a “somewhat unprecedented” trilateral arrangement.
He said he was surprised to hear Mr. Trudeau play down the pact as merely a submarine purchase deal. “I think it’s misleading and concerning … I would like to believe he was poorly briefed by his staff,” Mr. Norman said.
The retired naval flag officer said that, if Mr. Trudeau was fully briefed, “he doesn’t understand whatis going on internationally and he doesn’t understand what the significance of an arrangement like this is as it relates to international security.”
He said the agreement goes far beyond access to U.S. submarine technology.
“This is about accessing both current and emerging technologies, from cyber and artificial intelligence, to acoustics and underwater warfare – a whole range of very important strategic capabilities.”
Mr. Norman said Canada has many national interests in the Indo-Pacific – including trade, promoting the rule of law and democracy, and countering China’s aggressive behaviour and posturing – but he suspects closeallies do not take Canadian defence commitments seriously.
“I don’t think our allies think we are serious when it comes to defence. I think they have concerns not just about our defence expenditures, but also the extent to which our [international] commitments are both lasting and meaningful,” he sa
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Norman: "This is about accessing both current and emerging technologies, from cyber and artificial intelligence, to acoustics and underwater warfare – a whole range of very important strategic capabilities.”
Question: do you think the US/UK will withhold this type of information from NATO countries? If so, why? Also if so, then NATO has problems. If not, then Canada not being part of AUKUS is no big deal.
Now the Biden Admin wants to base fighters and bombers in Australia. If that happens, then the US will want to base missile defenses there to protect those assets. Then the Chinese will target those bases with nuclear ICBMs. Then the US will want to deploy ballistic missiles to Australia as a deterrent. And so on.
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
Does being shut out of three eyes make the procurement process easier, if this results in less political pressure to buy American product?
Also, it's seemed to me, for decades now, that the path forward for Canada from a military perspective would be to beef up the intelligence and cyber security angles, and negotiate this as an inclusion in meeting our military obligations to allies. Does the PMO enjoy being deaf, dumb and blind?
__________________
"We don't even know who our best player is yet. It could be any one of us at this point." - Peter LaFleur, player/coach, Average Joe's Gymnasium
Canada should move quickly to ensure its aging submarine fleet is replaced on time, considering the build-up in submarine capability by countries like Russia and China and the “relative decline” of the United States, according to a new paper from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. Article content
Canada needs to have replacement submarines before the current fleet of four diesel-electric Victoria-class subs is decommissioned, the paper authored by political science professor Jeffrey Collins says, given “Canada’s ability to exert influence in its vast maritime domain will be tested as the demand for resources and northern sea access increases in the coming decades.”
Quote:
The federal government has allotted up to $10 billion for separate projects to modernize and maintain its current submarines, but even with those initiatives the paper says “serious questions remain” about whether Canada will have a replacement ready by the time they are decommissioned, sometime between 2036 and 2042.
That might “not appear to be a particularly urgent timeline,” said former vice-admiral Mark Norman in an interview. But because complex procurements like this can take 12 to 15 years, that “gives us one to two years to really get this project properly initiated and oriented.”
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Britain is signalling its interest in working with the Canadian military in the Arctic by offering to take part in cold-weather exercises and bring in some of its more advanced capabilities — such as nuclear-powered submarines — to help with surveillance and defence in the Far North.
In a recent exclusive interview with CBC News, the United Kingdom's top military commander said his country is "keen to co-operate" and learn more about how to survive and fight in a cold, remote setting.
Gen. Sir Nick Carter said Britain would also like to "co-operate in terms of helping Canada do what Canada needs to do as an Arctic country."
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
When our allies nicely call us weak on arctic sovereignty.
A 2010 UK defence White Paper nuked its maritime patrol aircraft capability, despite being an island country. And so the irony is that Canada and other NATO countries have been providing that capability for the past several years. Only recently did the UK realize it was stupid for an island nation not to have maritime patrol aircraft. Likewise, an Arctic country like Canada should devote resources to defending the North. Unlike Canada, though, the UK acknowledged their folly and recently began taking delivery of P8s for maritime patrol.
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
The Following User Says Thank You to Baron von Kriterium For This Useful Post: