Canadian Military News

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

How do you screw up so many elements of the design so badly? It's not even fancy new integrated technology. These issues scream Irving cutting every cost cutting corner they possibly could. Can we please get an audit on this?

Irving basically screwed us on this.


Irving beyond screwing up on the new frigates badly, also lied in the tender about having the facilities to build them and the Libs happily handed them a bunch of cash to upgrade them even though that wasn't our responsibility.


Mark Norman blew the whistle on them and almost got railroaded.


The Irvings are really Liberal friendly, and the worst.

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Turns out that our new arctic partrol vessels are terrible and we only negotiated a 1 year warranty with Irving.


https://ottawacitizen.com/news/natio...source=twitter

I have to ask, what do you think is the standard warranty for our ships? Historically.

Navies around the world have issues with their new ships. For example, Zumwalt, Littoral Combat Ship, Ford-class carrier, the new UK carriers, Type 26, the San Antonio Class, and German submarines all have their problems.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

I have to ask, what do you think is the standard warranty for our ships? Historically.

Navies around the world have issues with their new ships. For example, Zumwalt, Littoral Combat Ship, Ford-class carrier, the new UK carriers, Type 26, the San Antonio Class, and German submarines all have their problems.

Far past shakedown, testing, post shakedown refits, and past at least an active full deployment of at least a year.


Having the costs of repairs on what are clearly badly designed and built ships onto the taxpayers is wrong.


We have the new class program that's far over budget, like far far, and if we run into a similar situation, these frigates that cost more then the Queen Elizabeth class carrier, could end up costing us billions more.

[accord1999]

In semi-related news to the Canadian Surface Combatant, the Australians are cutting back their order of their version, the Hunter class, from 9 to 6 in a sweeping change in naval strategy to more of a "High/Low" fleet. In exchange for reduced high-end ships for the next 20-25 years time frame, they're planning new orders for cheaper light frigates in the 3-5K tonne range and several small "arsenal ships", potentially remote controllable ships cheaply made to carry VLS cells.

https://www.defence.gov.au/about/rev...ombatant-fleet

I wonder if the Canadian Navy will end up adopting a similar strategy due to the sheer costs and construction challenges of building 15 ships that are much bigger and more complex than anything ever built in Canada, and the need for something new to replace the very old Halifaxes.

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm surprise that they didn't look at killing the Hunter/type 26 frigate. The Aussies were disappointed that it was going to be slower, heavier and had several safety and design issues that they didn't expect, especially at a cost of $4.5 billion each, which is actually really insane.

[accord1999]

There's probably a lot of sunk cost with the Hunters, all the work for design and pre-construction and some of the steel is supposed to be cut already.

Australia also needs ships that it can build now to keep its naval shipyards working; unfortunately countries like Canada and Australia (and even the US these days) that don't have much of shipbuilding industry will have to accept less efficiencies and higher costs compared to the likes of Japan, South Korea and China who dominate commercial shipbuilding.

[CaptainCrunch]

It gets worse with the lemon arctic patrol ships that we had Lib friendly Irving ship yards build.


https://nationalpost.com/news/nation...c-5f5ef9e1c881

Problems with the Canadian navy’s new patrol ships have led to significant flooding causing excessive corrosion while other defects have resulted in mechanical failures involving anchors, sailors have revealed.

The flooding is centered around the area where the anchor cable comes into an enclosed deck on the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships or AOPS.


Article content
That problem resulted in an incident on board HMCS Harry DeWolf that saw severe flooding and the creation of a “salty sauna” environment that led to excessive corrosion, the Royal Canadian Navy sailors noted.

Taxpayers are spending almost $5 billion on the six ships for the Royal Canadian Navy. The vessels are being constructed by Irving Shipbuilding and a number have already been delivered.

Military personnel, both retired and serving, came forward to this newspaper to challenge claims by National Defence that AOPS issues, including drinking water with higher than average levels of lead, are simply teething problems associated with all new vessels. Video of the flooding was provided by personnel who asked not to be named for fear of retribution.
Article content

The ships only have a one-year warranty, Canadian military personnel have also pointed out, which means the taxpayer is footing the bill for most of the repairs.

National Defence spokesman Alex Tétreault confirmed the details of the incidents as described by the sailors.

But the Royal Canadian Navy contends the various problems being faced by the AOPS fleet are normal.

Irving Shipbuilding noted in a statement to this newspaper that, “through the process of designing, constructing, commissioning, and operating new ships, stakeholders work together to identify and resolve a range of issues. This is a normal but essential element of shipbuilding.”

This newspaper consulted with a senior retired Royal Canadian Navy officer who pointed out that the flooding that AOPS is dealing with is not normal. Neither are problems with anchors or contaminated water.

In its response, Irving also pointed to a video released by the navy in December 2023 in which Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee noted the AOPS “are outperforming expectations and proving the value of the National Shipbuilding Strategy.”

If they are having this many problems with the AOP's wait until they get going on the frigates, or look at the submarine replacements.

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

It gets worse with the lemon arctic patrol ships that we had Lib friendly Irving ship yards build.


https://nationalpost.com/news/nation...c-5f5ef9e1c881

To add some context: the video embedded in the article is of the forecastle. While it is an enclosed deck, it is not watertight. It doesn't drain properly, and that is a problem, but that is likely a design issue and not a build issue.

[CaptainCrunch]

Canadian Forces recruiting in a death spiral.


https://globalnews.ca/news/10341588/...medium=Twitter

The Canadian Forces is facing “a death spiral” when it comes to recruitment, even as the government is “constrained” on more defence spending, Defence Minister Bill Blair says.
Blair made those remarks after speaking to a crowd attending the Ottawa Conference on Security and Defence on Thursday, though stressed the government’s commitment to spend more on defence.
“If what you have been doing for decades is no longer working for you, you can’t just keep doing it,” he told Global News parliamentary bureau chief and The West Block host Mercedes Stephenson, who moderated a question-and-answer period with Blair.
“Over the past three years, more people have left than have entered. That is, frankly, a death spiral for the Canadian Armed Forces. We cannot afford to continue at that pace. We’ve got to do something differently.”
At the same time, Blair said calls to boost defence spending face challenges.
“We’re also constrained a little bit in our ability to make those dollar commitments by the current fiscal environment,” Blair said.

Disturbing that we have heard that the forces has 3 days of ammunition stockpile.
Our Navy is literally non functional.
Our Airfoce is literally non functional.

[CaptainCrunch]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nat...rope-1.7135390

Only 58 per cent of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) would be able to respond if called upon in a crisis by NATO allies right now — and almost half of the military's equipment is considered "unavailable and unserviceable" — says a recent internal Department of National Defence (DND) presentation obtained by CBC News.
The presentation, which touches on everything from readiness and equipment to recruiting and ammunition supplies, is dated Dec. 31, 2023.
It's the latest comprehensive snapshot of the state of the military.
The overview paints an alarming picture of the forces' decline in readiness — one that's even worse than the figures presented in last year's federal budget documents.
"In an increasingly dangerous world, where demand for the CAF is increasing, our readiness is decreasing," says the document.
The issue of military readiness has preoccupied the House of Commons defence committee. The committee held a series of closed-door meetings last year where MPs could discuss sensitive information with top military commanders.

The internal DND presentation shows that only 58 per cent of "committed CAF force elements ready to meet NATO notice move" could respond to the call in the event of major hostilities.
Canada is obliged to commit certain army, navy and air force units to the defence of Europe in an emergency — units that would reinforce troops already in the field, such as the Canadian-led brigade in Latvia.
The presentation shows 45 per cent of the Canadian military's equipment set aside for the defence of Europe faces "challenges" and is considered "unavailable and unserviceable."

The presentation says the air force is currently in the worst shape of all the CAF forces, with 55 per cent of "fighters, maritime aviation, search and rescue, tactical aviation, trainers and transport" considered "unserviceable."
The navy is not too far behind, with 54 per cent of its "frigates, submarines, Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships and defence vessels" in no state to deploy, the presentation warns.
The army fares slightly better, with only 46 per cent of its equipment considered "unserviceable."
The biggest challenge, according to the presentation, is "people shortfalls — technicians and support" as well as "funding shortfalls — spare parts and ammo."

At the end of last year, the document says, the military was short 15,780 members, a figure encompassing both regular and reserve elements.

CBC News shared a copy of the internal report with former vice-admiral Mark Norman, a former commander of the navy. He said he was startled by the numbers.
"This is borderline atrocious," Norman said.
"Readiness is all about measuring the ability of your armed forces to do what it is they're expected to do. And fundamentally, that's all about going somewhere and fighting. And, you know, it's a pretty dire situation when you're ... not where you need to be."

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nat...rope-1.7135390

It is a clown show

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Disturbing that we have heard that the forces has 3 days of ammunition stockpile.

That's probably true of most of the NATO countries other than the US and Turkey these days (and even the US can only build modest numbers of shells and missiles per year). Decades of post-cold war cost-cutting and shifting to fight insurgents means that most militarizes are unprepared for an intensive peer-on-peer conflict.

It also extends further; when you look at the the Ukrainian war and see the leading weapons system in use there, Canada has almost none of that. Very little towed artillery, no self-propelled artillery, rocket artillery, stand-off weapons, air defenses or loitering drones.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by accord1999

It also extends further; when you look at the the Ukrainian war and see the leading weapons system in use there, Canada has almost none of that. Very little towed artillery, no self-propelled artillery, rocket artillery, stand-off weapons, air defenses or loitering drones.

Canada has very little of any modern military hardware.

Frankly it is ####ing embarrassing, but historically accurate.

Canadians do not give a #### about the military or the lives of their service men/women.

[CaptainCrunch]

Right now today, if Canada ended up deploying to a European war . . . we'd probably plant 3/4 of those men and woman on day 1.



We have a non functioning airforce, a navy that can't deploy effectively. Most of our equipment has been ravaged by time. We have no air defenses for the battle field at all.


We have very few functioning tanks, I think our armoured vehicle stock is a bit better. We would have to raid the secretarial pool to fill out understrength formations. We have way to many officers, not enough NCO, and most of those officers probably couldn't lead a cat to a bowl of milk.


At least our subs can submerge, just don't ask them to surface again.

[Baron von Kriterium]

It's not all doom and gloom; we have tampons in the men's washroom now.

[GGG]

We do have oceans to protect us.

[Samonadreau]

Canada actually spends more on Military then Turkey. Its just terribly inefficient.

[speede5]

https://www.lakelandtoday.ca/cold-la...d-lake-8410312

Bittersweet day here, I was on the line when the first Hawk landed in MJ and am still here as we put them to bed. With this retirement Canada no longer has a fighter lead in, which is a significant gap. This is another casualty of the delayed F-35 decision.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by GGG

We do have oceans to protect us.

We have also committed to allies that we will support them across those oceans.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GGG

We do have oceans to protect us.

That's not as big of a deflector shield as it used to be.