Canadian Military News

[Cliche]

Post Millennial article


https://mobile.caf-fac.ca/canforgens...px8LxPybMWNKQg

Section 5F. Report to your local commissar for violations today.

[CaptainCrunch]

You've got to be kidding me. We've got a rusted out forces, that is going to struggle with completing any mission safely. We've got a fractured procurement system. We've got a F'd up fighter Jet replacement program. The next gen ship building is way over priced and over budgeted, We've got shortages of skilled personal in key positions. We've got a Defense Minister who's bungled every file that he's touched, and a dishonest scum bag as a CDS who wasted a bunch of money of a frivolous court case that threatened to fracture the Forces, and drive moral through the pooper and probably ended up costing us multi-millions in a please keep quiet sentiment.


And this is what they focus on. Unbelievable.

[GGG]

Is this policy designed so that when looking at promotions you can’t tell from reading reports if it was a male or a female?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

And this is what they focus on. Unbelievable.

No it really isn't.........

[CaptainCrunch]

up date on the Cyclone crash


https://calgarysun.com/news/national...box=1589938838

[CaptainCrunch]

Canada hits an all time low in terms of UN deployments


https://globalnews.ca/news/6973212/c...=%40globalnews

Canada’s contribution to peacekeeping has reached what is believed to be an all-time low, even as the Liberal government makes its final push to secure a coveted seat on the United Nations Security Council.


UN figures show there were 35 Canadian military and police officers deployed on peacekeeping operations at the end of April. That’s the fewest since at least 1956, according to Walter Dorn, a peacekeeping expert at the Canadian Forces College in Toronto.

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Canada hits an all time low in terms of UN deployments
[/URL]

We are too busy shovelling snow, filling sand bags, sweeping forests and changing diapers.

[CaptainCrunch]

Fair enough, and I get that. However Canada has been on the retreat from UN Peacekeeping for a while.



I have no problem with it, I think that Peacekeeping missions are obsolete and useless.


I also think that the UN is fairly useless and corrupt.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Fair enough, and I get that. However Canada has been on the retreat from UN Peacekeeping for a while.



I have no problem with it, I think that Peacekeeping missions are obsolete and useless.


I also think that the UN is fairly useless and corrupt.

Peacekeeping has been dead a long time, the final nail in the coffin was in the Balkans during the mid-90's.

In fact, I struggle to really identify any truly successful deployment, as in Peacekeepers show up and happiness ensues so that they are no longer needed.

Now, Peacemaking, that is something that should be investigated........

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Peacekeeping has been dead a long time, the final nail in the coffin was in the Balkans during the mid-90's.

In fact, I struggle to really identify any truly successful deployment, as in Peacekeepers show up and happiness ensues so that they are no longer needed.

Now, Peacemaking, that is something that should be investigated........

I'm with you, I can recall very few successful Peacekeeping mission,

I think the current term that you're talking about is Peace Enforcement, which the UN really isn't capable of providing. The day and age of troops driving around in pretty white jeeps wearing berets and standing bravely but stupidly in between warring factions while clutching their pistols and small arms was always to me a stupid concept that was doomed to failure.

Instead in this day and age, to me peacemaking or enforcement requires an or else fist.

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Fair enough, and I get that. However Canada has been on the retreat from UN Peacekeeping for a while.

I have no problem with it, I think that Peacekeeping missions are obsolete and useless.

I also think that the UN is fairly useless and corrupt.

The UN is an industry - peacekeeping especially. The UN pays USD 1428/month/soldier. This is why the three big troop contributors are Ethiopia, Bangladesh and Rwanda. They certainly aren't paying their soldiers that kind of cash; thus, these poor countries actually make money deploying their troops on peacekeeping missions. Canada and other first world countries lose money, which is why you see low troop numbers from first world nations.

All that aside, there are many, many Canadian soldiers frustrated with the lack of something "to do". Unfortunately, the "to do" emphasis has increasingly morphed into domestic operations (up about 1000% over the past five years) which has most certainly gone from a last resort option to quick, get the CAF in here for the free labour option. I personally didn't join the Army to be the easy button for a government's failure to prep/plan for disasters in between rotations of Maple Resolve. You sign up and join a trade to accomplish goals and perform tasks that you think have meaning and you hope to deploy on a semi regular basis.

So, we can debate the worthiness of the UN, but the paradox is that it can provide meaningful (perhaps) employment to soldiers and give them deployments to look forward to.

Otherwise, we continue with the status quo which is an issue of retention. And, really, what is the point of a standing army that just sits around most of the year, conducting the same old training in the same old locations? Perhaps the answer is to revert back to the glory days of 4 CMBG in Germany, although I see Latvia or Poland replacing Germany.

[CaptainCrunch]

Cost bump in the building of Navy Supply Ships



https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/20.../#.XufMOedMGUl

OTTAWA — Canada's national shipbuilding plan was rocked by yet another cost increase on Monday as the federal government revealed it will pay $4.1 billion for two long-overdue support ships for the navy — an increase of $1.5 billion from initial estimates.


The revelation came as Ottawa officially awarded a contract for the full construction of the two new Protecteur-class joint support ships to Vancouver's Seaspan shipyards, which has already started work on the first of the vessels.
Seaspan was first tapped to build the two ships and several coast guard vessels in 2011, at which point the supply ships were expected to cost $2.6 billion. The figure was later revised to $3.4 billion before another $700 million was added Monday.


The first of the support ships was to have been delivered by 2019. The government says it now doesn't expect the first ship before 2023, with the second due in 2025. Seaspan has been under contract to work on some parts of the first ship since June 2018.


The Royal Canadian Navy has been without a full-time support ship since 2014 and is currently relying on a converted civilian vessel that is being leased from Quebec's Chantier Davie shipyard to fill the gap.

[Lubicon]

Sounds like mechanical failure has been ruled out in the Cyclone crash and it's looking like a possible software issue may have been the cause.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cyc...rash-1.5613239

[CaptainCrunch]

Not a total surprise, these are really complex machines with complex software running them. Someone can correct me, but these cyclones have been customized 10 ways from sunrise to meet CF standards.


The whole helicopter procurement thing though has just been an ongoing cluster.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by captaincrunch

the whole helicopter procurement thing though has just been an ongoing cluster.

sop

[Baron von Kriterium]

FFS. $862 million US to upgrade 36 CF-18s, plus munitions, doesn't seem like money well spent.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/t...age-okd-by-us/

Even while hemorrhaging money due to closed businesses, CERB payments, COVID related stuff, etc etc -- the Government still can't burn money fast enough

That's $862 million that could have been used to directly purchase roughly eight future fighters, or upgrade base infrastructure for future fighters, or spare parts for future fighters, etc etc. Or put towards making sure the CSC fleet is filled out. Or set that aside and use towards a sub replacement, or perhaps ask Sikorski for some additional Cyclone air frames.

But no. Instead we are buying AESA radars for A model legacy Hornets... aircraft that are due to be replaced only a few short years after the upgrades are complete...

It certainly appears to me that the fighter procurement will drag on even longer.

[CaptainCrunch]

Look, you're the expert, and I bow to that, You're more current and up to date on this stuff.



I think this is stupid to spend money like this on those airframes. Maybe you can help me out on the deeper questions that I have


1) These are about 40 year old airframes, what's the actual life span on an airframe on a high performance fighter.
2) I've been reading about a shortage of pilots anyways, we have 80 fighters and we can't keep them in the air.
3) Why would we only be doing these upgrades on 36 out of the 80 fighters
4) Even with the capability upgrades, where does this place the F-18's in terms of current fighter capability.

5) I was watching a video the other night that talks about the next failure point in our fleet being the hardware systems, landing gear and control surfaces wear and tear.


I was reading that the F-35 costs are dropping as production ramps up, I think the last cost I read was $90 million per plane for the A variant so a fleet of 88 would be about $ 8 billion. Does it make sense to spend 10% of that to upgrade half the fleet.


I've read that the cost on the Super Hornet is at 70 million per plane and the JAS-39E is theoretically going to be about $60 million or more per cost.


Spending 10% of the outlay on a new fleet to upgrade half the fleet of aged F-18's is incredibly stupid to me, and frankly what this means is the Liberals will punt the procurement of a new fleet down the road by more then half a decade.

[Harry Lime]

Another question...

I know that the preferred plane seems to be the F-35, but the SAAB might be more politically 'sellable' due to it's low cost for operation (comparatively). If the gov't had simply made the decision to go with the Gripen and we were already in the flight training phase, as other countries are, with delivery in 2023, would we be in a much better place right now?

I guess a better question would be that is an upgrade to Gripen still vastly ahead of whatever we are currently doing?

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Look, you're the expert, and I bow to that, You're more current and up to date on this stuff.

I think this is stupid to spend money like this on those airframes. Maybe you can help me out on the deeper questions that I have

1) These are about 40 year old airframes, what's the actual life span on an airframe on a high performance fighter.
2) I've been reading about a shortage of pilots anyways, we have 80 fighters and we can't keep them in the air.
3) Why would we only be doing these upgrades on 36 out of the 80 fighters
4) Even with the capability upgrades, where does this place the F-18's in terms of current fighter capability.

5) I was watching a video the other night that talks about the next failure point in our fleet being the hardware systems, landing gear and control surfaces wear and tear.


I was reading that the F-35 costs are dropping as production ramps up, I think the last cost I read was $90 million per plane for the A variant so a fleet of 88 would be about $ 8 billion. Does it make sense to spend 10% of that to upgrade half the fleet.


I've read that the cost on the Super Hornet is at 70 million per plane and the JAS-39E is theoretically going to be about $60 million or more per cost.


Spending 10% of the outlay on a new fleet to upgrade half the fleet of aged F-18's is incredibly stupid to me, and frankly what this means is the Liberals will punt the procurement of a new fleet down the road by more then half a decade.

Part of the reason for the pilot shortage was they were losing pilots to the airlines, partly due to the fact funding has been cut so badly they were hardly getting any flying hours. The funding part is easy to fix if the Feds had the balls to put some $$$ into our forces. And now the threat of losing people to the airlines is greatly reduced due to Covid layoffs. It's a golden opportunity to keep our pilots and solve this problem if we actually had some aircraft they could fly and the money to operate them.

I'm hearing that the pilot drain from the US military has almost entirely stopped too now that civilian opportunities have evaporated.

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

1) These are about 40 year old airframes, what's the actual life span on an airframe on a high performance fighter.
2) I've been reading about a shortage of pilots anyways, we have 80 fighters and we can't keep them in the air.
3) Why would we only be doing these upgrades on 36 out of the 80 fighters
4) Even with the capability upgrades, where does this place the F-18's in terms of current fighter capability.

5) I was watching a video the other night that talks about the next failure point in our fleet being the hardware systems, landing gear and control surfaces wear and tear.

1) Typically 8000 hours. Assume 200 hrs/yr and you're looking at 30-40 years.

2) Pilot and technician shortages are well-documented. The causes are more often having to do with other issues and not old airplanes.

a. It's a different world and our military hasn't adapted. By that I mean previous generations could work in Cold Lake or Bagotville and not really care. They would establish tight knit communities on the base and everything was fine. Today, the young people want action when they are off duty. There's no action in Cold Lake.

b. The training cycle is too damn long. We have three pilot wannabes in our office right now - all waiting training.

c. Pilots want to fly, but sometimes it's too much, especially if you're flying the transport planes. The pilots are always away from home. When they are home, they are tasked with $hitty little jobs and secondary duties that increasingly demand more time.

3). Because the Government said, "This sale will provide Canada a 2-squadron bridge of enhanced F/A-18A aircraft to continue meeting NORAD and NATO commitments." In other words, the GoC believes only two squadrons are necessary and that they lied when they said there was an urgent capability gap when justifying the used F-18s from Australia.

4). I don't have any issues with the F-18's capability with these upgrades.

5). Yeah, but you can easily replace those parts with brand new parts.