Canadian Military News

[karl262]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I like the Gotland's but they're no faster then the Victoria's. They're also a tiny boat with a crews compliment of about 40 people. Both the Victoria and the Gotland could be described as pure coastal patrol boats.

Neither is well suited to carry boarding crews or do boarding actions.

Also the Gotland is slightly slower then the Victoria, and has the advantage of a AIP system for greater underwater transition range, neither is well suited to patrol the arctic or go under ice.

If you want to do specialized missions like inspections and boarding you need a boat that can keep up with a pursuit, you also need the intimidation factor, Submarines are more designed for intelligence gathering and sneaking and punching large holes in unsuspecting ships.

I just think that Subs are ill suited to the mission your talking about. Where they are helpful is to covertly track suspicious ship and call in assets to seize and board.

If we decided that we just wanted to kill vessels that were doing illegal activities (smuggling, drug running, illegal fishing) then I would say go for it, but it seems expensive to use a torpedo on a boat.

I just think that if our navy is ever in a shooting situation against some other navy, we need something that punches above its weight. We have a very limited defense budged and more coastline than any other country on the planet. For $60 billion dollars we could buy over 100 of the Gotlands successor boats. They're far cheaper than nuclear.

These things are so deadly that the Americans leased one from Sweden to study it after it snuck up on a carrier battle group and killed the carrier in training exercises before slipping away. AIP subs are the hardest to detect.

They aren't the ideal boat for going under ice but can still do it. They can go 18 days and travel 4000 kms submerged, quiter than any other sub. We would be able to enforce our northern sovereignty, something frigates can't do.



Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

[GoinAllTheWay]

More gong show! WW2 era pistols are, surprisingly, unreliable.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...ement-drags-on

Should take 1-2 yrs to sort out a replacement. Our timeline? 10 yrs......

[btimbit]

Oh good. Trying to replace aging equipment. We're so good at that

[Lubicon]

Military looking at relocating Aerospace Engineering Test Establishment (AETE) unit at Cold Lake to Ottawa.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...erta-1.4937024

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by karl262

I just think that if our navy is ever in a shooting situation against some other navy, we need something that punches above its weight. We have a very limited defense budged and more coastline than any other country on the planet. For $60 billion dollars we could buy over 100 of the Gotlands successor boats. They're far cheaper than nuclear.

These things are so deadly that the Americans leased one from Sweden to study it after it snuck up on a carrier battle group and killed the carrier in training exercises before slipping away. AIP subs are the hardest to detect.

They aren't the ideal boat for going under ice but can still do it. They can go 18 days and travel 4000 kms submerged, quiter than any other sub. We would be able to enforce our northern sovereignty, something frigates can't do.



Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

Submarines can't coordinate very well, they don't form task force groups, they have one pretty specific role whereas a surface fleet is fully multi-role.


Boarding from a submarine would be pretty unsafe as well.


I like the AIP concept for a submarine, but I disagree with you on a navy based on submarines, you throw away your flexibility, your search and rescue, your ability to react to crisis, your ability to interdict and search vessels.


I also get that the Gotland had a good day against the Ronald Reagan battle group. But that's no guarantee that it reflects the effectiveness of the class. One of Canada's Oberon Class boats snuck in a US carrier group in the late 80's and took snap shots too.


It was a very good day, and a perfect combination of conditions and the Captain of the boat, and the opposition. I wouldn't buy a 100 boats based on one very good day.


I also wouldn't sole platform the navy. If you want to do it right, you have a surface navy with a strong command and control element and strong data links to things like subs and fighters (F-35) and patrol craft. You can use the sub as a force multiplier and recon platform if it has those strong data links.


But at the end of the day, a submarine isn't robust enough, multipurpose capable enough or agile and fast enough to be a effective back bone to your navy unless your plan is blockade or punching holes in ships.

[CaptainCrunch]

just to add on 3 years ago a 30 year old French Submarine, the Sarphir a first generation Rubis class french nuclear submarine built in the late 70's penetrated a American Carrier group and administratively sank the Roosevelt and its escorts in 2015.

[CaptainCrunch]

Annual Maple Flag cancelled

https://twitter.com/user/status/1072858826104365057

[Lubicon]

That's pathetic. Our government (present and past) should be ashamed of themselves.

[CaptainCrunch]

I think that the capability problems are coming to light, just not in the same way that the defense minister talked about.


The last release of the Auditor General's report on the Fighter Jet Purchase file stated that we simply don't have enough trained pilots to handle the number of jets that we have now. The AG also trashed the Liberals on their plans to fly the CF-18's until 2032 without significant capability upgrades because they'd basically be useless if deployed in the more advanced battlefield



Also



I remember reading a report on our current inventory of CF-18's and someone else can probably comment but they're starting to become a maintenance nightmare with microfractures on the air frame and going beyond their expected life span.


The problem with the Australian F-18's is they've flown in a more sea based environment and because of that there are corrosion issues that have to be dealt with.


Even the new fighter jet replacement program is becoming a farce, Rafale has pulled out due to interoperability requirements with Norad that can't be met, The Eurofighter will probably follow suit. That leaves the Gripen JAS-29, the Super Hornet and the F-35 left.


I talked a couple of years ago about the expected rust out of the Forces and degradation in capability and recruiting across all services. The Airforce has literally hit that point now about a decade before I thought it would happen.


What makes this worse is that it makes us look bad in front of our allies. The American's, German's, Netherlands and other airforces usually participate. The last time it was cancelled was 2011 because of NATO commitments with Libya.

[CaptainCrunch]

Terrible story of a woman who lost her son and her leg, the Canadian Forces decided she was on duty at the time, but are refusing to pay for her leg.



https://globalnews.ca/news/4753763/k...rosthetic-leg/

Air Force Capt. Kimberly Fawcett served her country, deploying twice to Afghanistan as a part of Canada’s war effort.


Now Fawcett is fighting her own government, asking the military to pay for a prosthetic limb, after she lost her leg in an accident that wounded her critically and killed her nine-month-old son, Keiran.

A summary investigation ordered by the military found that, although Fawcett was not at her place of duty at the time of the accident, she was “’going about a matter related (directly) to service in the Canadian Forces’ (Ref E para 29) in that both travel to her son’s daycare and then to the base were required activities to enable her to perform her military duties at work.”


The investigating officer continued that Fawcett “… should be considered on duty from the time she left home in uniform, as her activities were all in support of carrying out her military duties.”


That finding was overturned by one of Fawcett’s commanding officers who determined she was not on duty despite the findings of the summary investigation.

I guess she could go directly to veteran's affairs minister Seamus O'Reagan but he's too busy telling people that leaving his high paying job as a media person is somehow the same as a veteran leaving the military and dealing with injuries and PTSD.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ore...tion-1.4939878

[karl262]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Submarines can't coordinate very well, they don't form task force groups, they have one pretty specific role whereas a surface fleet is fully multi-role.


Boarding from a submarine would be pretty unsafe as well.


I like the AIP concept for a submarine, but I disagree with you on a navy based on submarines, you throw away your flexibility, your search and rescue, your ability to react to crisis, your ability to interdict and search vessels.


I also get that the Gotland had a good day against the Ronald Reagan battle group. But that's no guarantee that it reflects the effectiveness of the class. One of Canada's Oberon Class boats snuck in a US carrier group in the late 80's and took snap shots too.


It was a very good day, and a perfect combination of conditions and the Captain of the boat, and the opposition. I wouldn't buy a 100 boats based on one very good day.


I also wouldn't sole platform the navy. If you want to do it right, you have a surface navy with a strong command and control element and strong data links to things like subs and fighters (F-35) and patrol craft. You can use the sub as a force multiplier and recon platform if it has those strong data links.


But at the end of the day, a submarine isn't robust enough, multipurpose capable enough or agile and fast enough to be a effective back bone to your navy unless your plan is blockade or punching holes in ships.

We would still have a coast guard that can do search and rescue/boarding. Maybe the current frigates can be retrofitted and put into service by the coast guard.

I think that the reason a nation has a navy is to do one very specific thing, prevent adversarial/hostile navies from operating in its own territorial waters. Right now we cannot do that in the north and thus other nations don't recognize the northwest passage as Canadian territorial waters. There is no solution on the table to fix this. We've looked into nuclear subs for this in the late 80s but the cold war was winding down and there just wasn't the political appetite to spend billions on 8-12 boats.

I know its never gonna happen, its just that when I think about the best platform for deterrence and defending Canadian waters with force (hopefully never has to happen) a navy commander might prefer a submarine to a frigate. Maybe we could flip the ratios and buy 12 aip subs and 3 frigates.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by karl262

We would still have a coast guard that can do search and rescue/boarding. Maybe the current frigates can be retrofitted and put into service by the coast guard.

Remember also that Frigates are completely multi-role. They have multiple levels of sensors as well with air, surface and sub surface. They have long range standoff weapons as well as short range weapons and anti-air defense. Unless we're going to retro-grade out submarines to fire long range cruise missiles they have one weapons system that can only really range in the thousands of yards short band. Also a sub's primary sensor package is sonar which does nothing to protect air space off the coast.


Submarines also don't have pursuit speed, which a surface vessel does have

Originally Posted by karl262

I think that the reason a nation has a navy is to do one very specific thing, prevent adversarial/hostile navies from operating in its own territorial waters. Right now we cannot do that in the north and thus other nations don't recognize the northwest passage as Canadian territorial waters. There is no solution on the table to fix this. We've looked into nuclear subs for this in the late 80s but the cold war was winding down and there just wasn't the political appetite to spend billions on 8-12 boats.

Navy's are built to be completely multi-role. Absolutely they are there to protect a nations territorial waters, but they can also assist in protecting air space. As well they are there for search and rescue, interdiction in terms of smuggling. Three of the roles cannot really be carried out by a submarine.



A submarine does two things really well. Ambush and sink, and gather intelligence. The third thing that it can do well is something that our subs aren't really designed to do which is shallow water insertion of special forces.


A submarine is designed to be part of an overall naval strategy, not be the only part of your naval strategy.


Also in terms of the nuclear navy concept that Canada looked at under Brian Mulroney.


1) The costs would have been relatively cheap at the time as the US navy was moving on to their flight II LA Class boats iirc, so they would have probably sold us a few of the first flights for cheap instead of doing an expensive refurbishment that included cutting the hull to insert a weapons plug for vertical launch and the significant redesign of its command and control spaces and the upgrading of its sensor and computerization suite.


2) Peace broke out, the Soviet Union fell apart and they couldn't afford to run their navy and their large submarine forces rotted at the pier. Canada lost its desire to modernize their navy.


3) Transitioning from a diesel electric submarine fleet to a nuclear navy would have been nearly impossible. Beyond the concept of retraining your entire submarine force and establishing a training regime and school for engineers. The environmentalist movement probably would have gone nuts. Plus we would have had to completely rebuild our submarine facilities and dry docks as refitting a nuclear submarine is far different then a diesel electric boat.

Originally Posted by karl262

I know its never gonna happen, its just that when I think about the best platform for deterrence and defending Canadian waters with force (hopefully never has to happen) a navy commander might prefer a submarine to a frigate. Maybe we could flip the ratios and buy 12 aip subs and 3 frigates.

A navy commander would prefer a submarine with modern communications and data links in combination to a frigate. Usually most American battle groups will contain 2 to 3 subs as their reconnaissance element to scout ahead to search for enemy subs, ships and mine fields.



Currently Canada really doesn't have the ability to form their own effective battlegroups as we retired our command destroyers that you form a group around. But I'm sure if you would have asked that group commander what he would want it would be



Destroyer for offensive punch.
Frigates for air defense and submarine defense
Submarine for advanced scouting and anti ship/anti-sub capabilities.
Oh and either a few helicopters with great sensor suites or access to land based air craft for anti-submarine or anti ship capabilities.


Oh one more add on.


Submarines aren't designed to work in groups with each other because frankly radios or their sound based phones radiate noise. Submarines are designed to work as individual units.


Even with a submarine if they're scouting and they spot a ship and they have to stick up an antennae to communicate up the chain of command they hate that because again they're radiating and most navy ships have the ability to quickly triangulate the signal and attack it.


Even if a submarine uses something like a message buoy, they're designed not to send a signal until the sub is a good distance away.

[CaptainCrunch]

Defense minister caught in a lie over the Fawcett case

https://twitter.com/user/status/1073025144438837249

[Baron von Kriterium]

[QUOTE=CaptainCrunch;6904852]Terrible story of a woman who lost her son and her leg, the Canadian Forces decided she was on duty at the time, but are refusing to pay for her leg. /QUOTE]
It is a heart-wrenching story and is awful to read about her accident. However, I want to make clear a few points because the media, as usual, didn't include them, either willfully or ignorantly.
1. The CAF did not decide she was on duty at the time. A certain MGen (Semianiw) and the Summary Investigation determined she was on duty at the time. Note that a Summary Investigation is non-binding. The CAF (CDS for all intents and purposes) over-ruled the MGEN and the case went to court and the court dismissed Capt Fawcett's claim.


[2] For the reasons that follow, I conclude that Captain Fawcett’s unique circumstances were reasonably considered by the CDS but were not found to support her argument that she was engaged in military service at the time of the accident. Considering the deference owed to the CDS decision, this is a reasonable conclusion and therefore this judicial review is dismissed. I decline to award costs.
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf...QAHRmF3Y2V0dAE



2. The stories in the media paint a picture of a nasty CAF, unwilling to pay for a prosthetic. But that isn't true. Regardless of whether she was on duty or not, the CAF paid for all of her medical procedures, rehab and prosthetic legs while she still served. Only after she released did the CAF obligation end.



3. Commuting to/from work (in the military) is considered to be "on duty" and the grey areas are things like if the member stops on the way to/from work to run an errand. How many stops are you allowed, and for how long? As per normal, this "on duty" while commuting is not clearly defined. Typically, though, it means you are covered from your last point of departure. So, home to McDonald's, not covered. McDonald's to work, covered. And vice verse for commuting home.


[QUOTE=CaptainCrunch;6904852]I guess she could go directly to veteran's affairs minister Seamus O'Reagan./QUOTE]VAC will not pay because the CAF determined the injury was not duty-related. When/if the CAF reverses their decision, VAC will then engage.


At the end of the day, MGen Semianiw (who was Chief of Military Personnel at the time) decided in her favor and that should have been the end of it. But it's the CAF. So, advisors to the CDS stepped in and challenged that decision. Now, they have a PR nightmare over $40K.

[CaptainCrunch]

Thanks for your insight.


More today from Mercedes Stephenson's twitter

https://twitter.com/user/status/1073310453042999297

Mercedes Stephenson‏Verified account @MercedesGlobal









Defence Minister @HarjitSajjan "I want to thank Capt Fawcett for her service to her country" (opposition MPs groan), Sajjan "we are committed to making sure he gets the support he needs" Opposition MPs "SHE!!!" #cdnpoli #CAF #veterans #QP #KimFawcett

[karl262]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Remember also that Frigates are completely multi-role. They have multiple levels of sensors as well with air, surface and sub surface. They have long range standoff weapons as well as short range weapons and anti-air defense. Unless we're going to retro-grade out submarines to fire long range cruise missiles they have one weapons system that can only really range in the thousands of yards short band. Also a sub's primary sensor package is sonar which does nothing to protect air space off the coast.


Submarines also don't have pursuit speed, which a surface vessel does have





Navy's are built to be completely multi-role. Absolutely they are there to protect a nations territorial waters, but they can also assist in protecting air space. As well they are there for search and rescue, interdiction in terms of smuggling. Three of the roles cannot really be carried out by a submarine.



A submarine does two things really well. Ambush and sink, and gather intelligence. The third thing that it can do well is something that our subs aren't really designed to do which is shallow water insertion of special forces.


A submarine is designed to be part of an overall naval strategy, not be the only part of your naval strategy.


Also in terms of the nuclear navy concept that Canada looked at under Brian Mulroney.


1) The costs would have been relatively cheap at the time as the US navy was moving on to their flight II LA Class boats iirc, so they would have probably sold us a few of the first flights for cheap instead of doing an expensive refurbishment that included cutting the hull to insert a weapons plug for vertical launch and the significant redesign of its command and control spaces and the upgrading of its sensor and computerization suite.


2) Peace broke out, the Soviet Union fell apart and they couldn't afford to run their navy and their large submarine forces rotted at the pier. Canada lost its desire to modernize their navy.


3) Transitioning from a diesel electric submarine fleet to a nuclear navy would have been nearly impossible. Beyond the concept of retraining your entire submarine force and establishing a training regime and school for engineers. The environmentalist movement probably would have gone nuts. Plus we would have had to completely rebuild our submarine facilities and dry docks as refitting a nuclear submarine is far different then a diesel electric boat.





A navy commander would prefer a submarine with modern communications and data links in combination to a frigate. Usually most American battle groups will contain 2 to 3 subs as their reconnaissance element to scout ahead to search for enemy subs, ships and mine fields.



Currently Canada really doesn't have the ability to form their own effective battlegroups as we retired our command destroyers that you form a group around. But I'm sure if you would have asked that group commander what he would want it would be



Destroyer for offensive punch.
Frigates for air defense and submarine defense
Submarine for advanced scouting and anti ship/anti-sub capabilities.
Oh and either a few helicopters with great sensor suites or access to land based air craft for anti-submarine or anti ship capabilities.


Oh one more add on.


Submarines aren't designed to work in groups with each other because frankly radios or their sound based phones radiate noise. Submarines are designed to work as individual units.


Even with a submarine if they're scouting and they spot a ship and they have to stick up an antennae to communicate up the chain of command they hate that because again they're radiating and most navy ships have the ability to quickly triangulate the signal and attack it.


Even if a submarine uses something like a message buoy, they're designed not to send a signal until the sub is a good distance away.

All very good points.

Do you think Canada should assert arctic sovereignty, and if so, how?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by karl262

All very good points.

Do you think Canada should assert arctic sovereignty, and if so, how?

Yes;


That's a tough question.


A deep water base is obviously a start.


Ice hardened patrol vessels.


A cold weather air strip with survey craft, and possible fighter support (pie in the sky)


Deep water sensor grid


As much as submarine patrols are probably the best idea, you have to have the endurance to stay under the ice for a long period of time, and have the ability to come up through the ice as needed.

[karl262]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Yes;


That's a tough question.


A deep water base is obviously a start.


Ice hardened patrol vessels.


A cold weather air strip with survey craft, and possible fighter support (pie in the sky)


Deep water sensor grid


As much as submarine patrols are probably the best idea, you have to have the endurance to stay under the ice for a long period of time, and have the ability to come up through the ice as needed.

Asserting arctic sovereignty means more than just presence and detection abilities. An overflight here and an ice breaker there doesn't cut it. Canada needs to be capable of intervention if unwelcome vessels enter its waters in the strategically important north.

I agree, nuclear subs are the best option.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by karl262

Asserting arctic sovereignty means more than just presence and detection abilities. An overflight here and an ice breaker there doesn't cut it. Canada needs to be capable of intervention if unwelcome vessels enter its waters in the strategically important north.

I agree, nuclear subs are the best option.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

Sure, but the ability to monitor and respond is a huge part of it.



I mean frankly the best way to control your sovereignty and cheapest is to mine the whole area. But at least if you have a sensor net for example and yes submarines you can detect and deploy. But to show interest you need bright visible deterrence

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

I am interested to see what the investigation reveals and hopefully it is made available as a case study.

Here is some more info on this collision...

The Norwegians have released a 3D representation of the collision.

https://www.vgtv.no/video/168039/se-...et?jwsource=cl

"Norway's Defence Ministry has released underwater footage showing, for the first time, the extent of the damage to its frigate KNM Helge Ingstad, which sank after colliding with an oil tanker erroneously taken for an immobile object."

https://sputniknews.com/military/201...-damage-video/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peQjN0LSsy8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfGVlpapvb8

The Spanish ship builder chimes in:

"While the Norwegian Navy has taken urgent measures abroad for the peers of the sunken frigate KNM Helge Ingstad to prevent inundation, the Spanish shipyard that manufactured the hapless warship has accused the Norwegian authorities of looking for excuses."

https://sputniknews.com/military/201...pain-shipyard/