Canadian Armed Forces Thread

[Boudrias]

19 minutes ago, JM_ said:

thats too bad, PP will just be focused on fake culture wars and not real ones, imo. He certainly isn't competent to increase our manufacturing sector. 

I think PP is the guy who will be the new leader. Populism has a limited effectiveness. The CPC like all parties has to have a fleshed plan for where Canada is headed. In depth and communicated with an effective speaker. 

[MattJVD]

17 hours ago, gurn said:

Few years back there was an opportunity to purchase a Mistral class helicopter ship from France- as Russia had just been sanctioned for taking over Crimea.

Comes with a full service hospital, with dental and all.

Ability to carry  a few tanks

a couple of fast attack boats.

Can carry a large amount of soldiers for a decent period of time.

 

Just from a disaster relief point of view I believe a case can be made for purchase.

Would have been a good option, buy one, get others built in Canada, to go along with the new frigates, arctic patrol ships and the new icebreakers.

 

15 new frigates would equal 5 on each coast

6 helicopter ships  - 2 on each coast- could also carry drones.

 

Bringing Canada up to it's soon to occur NATO financial commitment would mean about $5 billion in extra funding for each of the 3 branches of military, per year.

 

Edit to add.

Probably want 9 of the amphibious assault ships as a normal rotation has 1 at sea, 1 prepping for sea and 1 in refit.

Also provides enough ships to have a fleet doing duty, helping out in the world; not just on our coast.

There is a huge list of priorities at DND ahead of having a mechanized amphibious cabability. Not sure they would provide all that much utility to the RCN unless you forsee them storming some beaches. The Harry De Wolfe ships can carry two platoons of infantry with light equipment (snow mobiles, etc) and deploy them directly onto the ice, which suits our Artic needs just fine. 

 

The RCN is (and has been for 80 years) a premier anti-submarine force which is capable of supplementing and escorting our allies carrier or amphibious strike groups, but has hardly ever had the strategic need for fielding its own amphibious strike groups.

[Gurn]

34 minutes ago, MattJVD said:

There is a huge list of priorities at DND ahead of having a mechanized amphibious cabability. Not sure they would provide all that much utility to the RCN unless you forsee them storming some beaches. The Harry De Wolfe ships can carry two platoons of infantry with light equipment (snow mobiles, etc) and deploy them directly onto the ice, which suits our Artic needs just fine. 

 

The RCN is (and has been for 80 years) a premier anti-submarine force which is capable of supplementing and escorting our allies carrier or amphibious strike groups, but has hardly ever had the strategic need for fielding its own amphibious strike groups.

The Amphibious component is just one capability of the Mistral type of vessel.

The multiple helicopters on board- approx 16, can extend  the range and enhance the ability to do anti submarine work.

The hospital capabilities are of potential immense value, both in times of battle, and disaster relief.- As the climate changes this will become more important.

There is enough room aboard to designate this vessel as a flag ship

 

What the RCN has been for the last 80 years does not mean it has to stay in that spot.

The world is changing, reliance on others is seemingly not as good a strategy as in the past.

 

Downside to the actual Mistral class- Z drive/azipods steering. While highly maneuverable there is a hit to top speed.

Bigger crew- more yearly cost.

[MattJVD]

2 hours ago, gurn said:

The Amphibious component is just one capability of the Mistral type of vessel.

The multiple helicopters on board- approx 16, can extend  the range and enhance the ability to do anti submarine work.

The hospital capabilities are of potential immense value, both in times of battle, and disaster relief.- As the climate changes this will become more important.

There is enough room aboard to designate this vessel as a flag ship

 

What the RCN has been for the last 80 years does not mean it has to stay in that spot.

The world is changing, reliance on others is seemingly not as good a strategy as in the past.

 

Downside to the actual Mistral class- Z drive/azipods steering. While highly maneuverable there is a hit to top speed.

Bigger crew- more yearly cost.

The Joint Support Ships have hospitals and strategic sea lift, both the JSS and CSC can have flag bridges. Adding a helicopter/drone carrier would be great (if a bit of a pipe dream). But why dedicate so much of the ship's tonnage to vehicle decks and a flooding well deck if the primary purpose is aviation?

[Gurn]

21 minutes ago, MattJVD said:

The Joint Support Ships have hospitals and strategic sea lift, both the JSS and CSC can have flag bridges. Adding a helicopter/drone carrier would be great (if a bit of a pipe dream). But why dedicate so much of the ship's tonnage to vehicle decks and a flooding well deck if the primary purpose is aviation?

Multi purpose capability can be handy in an ever changing world.

I think Canada would do well to build up our own strength, to rely on others less, but also to be able to do more for others, and ourselves.

 

Pipe dream is right anyway.

Still waiting on a decision on fighter/multi purpose war planes.

Choppers falling from the sky or grounded due to tail rotor cracks;  getting reminiscent of the archaic Sea Things.

 

It will take time, money and a lot of effort to fix the current shortcomings of the military.

I'd say it is past time to review/white paper just what we want to do, now and in the future.

Are we really going to rely on our  partnerships, or rely on mostly ourselves?

 

We are obviously different, due to geography than Ukraine; but  seeing how nobody is adding boots to their ground, should be an eye openers about self reliance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gurn]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/defence-minister-says-shes-considering-aggressive-options-to-increase-canadas-military-spending/ar-AAV9ZZ4?ocid=uxbndlbing

Defence Minister Anita Anand says she will present a range of military spending options to cabinet ahead of the upcoming spring budget — some of which could result in a significant jump in Canada's defence spending.

Some of the options could see Ottawa's defence spending exceed two per cent of Canada's GDP, Anand said.

On Wednesday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg called on allied nations to spend a "minimum" of two per cent of GDP on defence. He warned the upcoming expansion of NATO's deterrence and defence efforts in eastern Europe will "require major investments" by the allies.

 

Canada currently spends 1.39 per cent of its GDP on the military, according to the latest NATO figures, and has had no plan to hit the long-established two per cent target. Anand signalled that might change.

"I personally am bringing forward aggressive options which would see [Canada], potentially, exceeding the two per cent level, hitting the two per cent level, and below the two per cent level," she said during an interview with CBC's Power & Politics.

When spending options are prepared for the federal cabinet, senior bureaucrats routinely give ministers three options with pricetags.

When it presented its defence policy almost five years ago, the Trudeau government projected defence spending would increase to nearly 1.5 per cent of GDP by 2024.

But a recent report by the Parliamentary Budget Office showed that much of the capital spending on new equipment has been pushed off until later in the decade because of delays in major projects, such as new frigates for the navy and fighter jets for the air force.

Canada currently has the fifth-lowest defence budget as a portion of GDP among the 30 NATO member states. The defence budgets of the United States and United Kingdom are 3.5 per cent and 2.3 per cent of GDP, respectively.

"We are going to be moving forward with increased defence spending," Anand said.

"Why? Because we see the threat environment as changing rapidly but also because continental defence is a priority for me, personally as minister, and for our government."

Anand said she has raised the issue of defence spending with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland within the past day. She said she has spoken also to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau about the prospect of changes to the military budget.

During his recent tour of Europe and in consultations with allies, Trudeau refused to commit to higher defence spending in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, though Freeland has said "defence spending is something that we have to look at carefully."

The federal government is expected to table its next annual budget in the first week of April.

The increased spending will include work to modernize NORAD and efforts to strengthen Canada's presence in the Arctic, Anand said.

When it presented its 2017 defence policy, the Liberal government did not include the cost of modernizing NORAD, the North American air defence network, in its projections.

[Gurn]

Current GDP of Canada is about 2.016 Trillion U.S.

current spending on Canadian Military is 1.39 % of gdp     or 28,022,400,000

                                                                  2%           equals    40,320,000,000

                                                                  2.2%                       44,352,000,000

                                                                  2.5%                       50,400,000,000

[MattJVD]

It'll be interesting to see the DND section of the budget in a few weeks

[King Heffy]

A cheap and effective way to improve our military would be to ease up on the bilingualism requirements so good officers who may struggle with French can advance.

[MattJVD]

21 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

A cheap and effective way to improve our military would be to ease up on the bilingualism requirements so good officers who may struggle with French can advance.

Good officers who struggle with French get paid to take French classes so they can meet the requirements.

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, MattJVD said:

Good officers who struggle with French get paid to take French classes so they can meet the requirements.

That and English isn't the only language spoken internationally.  French is a very important language abroad too.  

[Gurn]

Maybe more than just a money /size problem with the Navy part of our Military:

However the Military's response seems quite good at first look- and they are continuing to look.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/canadian-navy-cancels-training-course-after-alleged-racist-and-sexual-misconduct-incidents/ar-AAVdHIm?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

The Royal Canadian Navy has been forced to cancel one of its basic recruiting training courses on the West Coast after a series of alleged racist and sexual misconduct incidents, CBC News has learned.

Three sailors-in-training were kicked off of the course and one of them is being released from the military, a spokesman for the navy said late Thursday night after questions about the incident were posed by CBC News.

Four separate incidents allegedly took place between Feb. 15 and March 9 at different locations on the same training course at Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, B.C.

"We have made it clear that any form of harassment and inappropriate behaviour within our ranks is unacceptable," said Lt.-Cmdr. Anthony Wright in a statement late Thursday. 

"It harms our people, jeopardizes our operational effectiveness, and is inconsistent with our values and ethical principles."

In one incident, a text chat group was allegedly set up among some recruits and a sexually explicit photo was shared. The person alleged to have sent the photo — whom the navy will not identify — is expected to be booted out of the military.

Separately, an instructor on one of the courses was on the receiving end of "inappropriate sexualized comments" from two recruits, said Wright. 

Both sailors are under review and face the possibility of being released.

The third incident saw a racist and hateful message allegedly placed on the equipment of one recruit. There was a second separate racist incident, involving another recruit and that incident included alleged threats of physical harm.

Training terminated

Military police have launched investigations into both occurrences of alleged hateful conduct, but have yet to identify suspects.

As a result, training for the entire course has been terminated and internal investigations — known as Progress Review Boards — are being convened for all recruits. The review will determine whether the recruits can continue with training.

At the outset of the course in January, there were 51 candidates on the course. Sixteen recruits left for a variety of reasons including voluntary release, and medical or compassionate grounds. By the time the course was cancelled, there were 35 trainees still part of the program.

"The incidents that occurred did not involve physical harm to any member of the group," said Wright. "This does not reduce the seriousness of these incidents in any way, as harmful behaviour, especially racist behaviour has no place within our ranks."

In light of the ongoing investigations, it is possible more recruits may be released or face "administrative action, disciplinary measures, or criminal charges," he added.

[Alflives]

6 minutes ago, gurn said:

Maybe more than just a money /size problem with the Navy part of our Military:

However the Military's response seems quite good at first look- and they are continuing to look.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/canadian-navy-cancels-training-course-after-alleged-racist-and-sexual-misconduct-incidents/ar-AAVdHIm?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

The Royal Canadian Navy has been forced to cancel one of its basic recruiting training courses on the West Coast after a series of alleged racist and sexual misconduct incidents, CBC News has learned.

Three sailors-in-training were kicked off of the course and one of them is being released from the military, a spokesman for the navy said late Thursday night after questions about the incident were posed by CBC News.

Four separate incidents allegedly took place between Feb. 15 and March 9 at different locations on the same training course at Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, B.C.

"We have made it clear that any form of harassment and inappropriate behaviour within our ranks is unacceptable," said Lt.-Cmdr. Anthony Wright in a statement late Thursday. 

"It harms our people, jeopardizes our operational effectiveness, and is inconsistent with our values and ethical principles."

In one incident, a text chat group was allegedly set up among some recruits and a sexually explicit photo was shared. The person alleged to have sent the photo — whom the navy will not identify — is expected to be booted out of the military.

Separately, an instructor on one of the courses was on the receiving end of "inappropriate sexualized comments" from two recruits, said Wright. 

Both sailors are under review and face the possibility of being released.

The third incident saw a racist and hateful message allegedly placed on the equipment of one recruit. There was a second separate racist incident, involving another recruit and that incident included alleged threats of physical harm.

Training terminated

Military police have launched investigations into both occurrences of alleged hateful conduct, but have yet to identify suspects.

As a result, training for the entire course has been terminated and internal investigations — known as Progress Review Boards — are being convened for all recruits. The review will determine whether the recruits can continue with training.

At the outset of the course in January, there were 51 candidates on the course. Sixteen recruits left for a variety of reasons including voluntary release, and medical or compassionate grounds. By the time the course was cancelled, there were 35 trainees still part of the program.

"The incidents that occurred did not involve physical harm to any member of the group," said Wright. "This does not reduce the seriousness of these incidents in any way, as harmful behaviour, especially racist behaviour has no place within our ranks."

In light of the ongoing investigations, it is possible more recruits may be released or face "administrative action, disciplinary measures, or criminal charges," he added.

Mostly these pigs for people (like described in the article) are cowards too.  They get into their little groups and attack those they see as weaker and vulnerable.  We don't want these cowardly losers being the defenders of our nation.  

[MattJVD]

Canada selects the F35 for its next fighter:

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canada-picks-us-made-f-35-fighter-jet-as-next-warplane/

 

It's a more mature product than it was a decade ago when Canada first sought to buy the F35. Now in its 4th 'block' of production: purchase and operating costs have fallen by about 15% and reliability has improved.

Edited March 28, 2022 by MattJVD

[DeNiro]

3 minutes ago, MattJVD said:

Canada selects the F35 for its next fighter:

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canada-picks-us-made-f-35-fighter-jet-as-next-warplane/

 

It's a more mature product than it was a decade ago when Canada first sought to buy the F35. Now in its 4th 'block' of production: purchase and operating costs have fallen by about 15% and reliability has improved.

Wasn’t there a whole issue with it not even being the proper plane for the missions we need to fly over the arctic?

[MattJVD]

16 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

Wasn’t there a whole issue with it not even being the proper plane for the missions we need to fly over the arctic?

Most of the criticisms were out-dated arguments about it being single-engine (and there for not reliable enough to patrol the arctic). Both the finalists were single engine aircraft, and single-engines are plenty reliable. The other largest criticism (that I could tell) is that it only has 4 weapon hard-points in the internal bay (it has 6 more under the wings). If it uses the under-wing hardpoints, it loses stealth. I think that's a valid criticism when it's doing strike missions in contested air space (why pay that much for stealth when you'll render it moot if you give it enough weapons to both hit targets and defend itself from aircraft). But I don't think that is particularly relevant for arctic interdiction missions: You want to be seen.  

Edited March 28, 2022 by MattJVD

[Warhippy]

1 hour ago, MattJVD said:

Canada selects the F35 for its next fighter:

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canada-picks-us-made-f-35-fighter-jet-as-next-warplane/

 

It's a more mature product than it was a decade ago when Canada first sought to buy the F35. Now in its 4th 'block' of production: purchase and operating costs have fallen by about 15% and reliability has improved.

At days end, I believe we should be doing what Turkey is.  Drones.

 

Their new age Bayaktar (sp) is capable of air to air fighting carries a solid amount of air to ground and now has a full 5 hour flight time while being ridiculously fast and agile.

 

A fleet of these say 100 strong is more than enough to secure our arctic sovereignty and at a literal fraction of the price

[MattJVD]

25 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

At days end, I believe we should be doing what Turkey is.  Drones.

 

Their new age Bayaktar (sp) is capable of air to air fighting carries a solid amount of air to ground and now has a full 5 hour flight time while being ridiculously fast and agile.

 

A fleet of these say 100 strong is more than enough to secure our arctic sovereignty and at a literal fraction of the price

It's subsonic, short range, and can not go head to head with manned fighters. It's a great tool for anti-drone, transport, helicopter, and slower attack aircraft work. It's a great piece of kit, but not a replacement for a 5th gen fighter.

[MystifyNCrucify]

I think that the war in Ukraine may be “World War Three”, but not in the way that one might think, and in a good way. 

 

 I have always questioned the wisdom of allowing your own country to be overly reliant on another, especially a corrupt dictatorship like Russia or China. With Western society, let alone Eastern, getting a taste of how far sh!t can hit the fan if we dont work together...it really puts “new age warfare” into perspective. 

 

Canada doesnt need to, but probably should, put 2% into defense. 

 

What is more important, and more profitable in the long run, is putting that 1.5-2.5% into being able to manufacture, train, resupply, maintain, and update what they do purchase. 

 

Its only a matter of time before the polar ice caps are the key to the survival of the human race. This sh!t isnt gonna fix itself, and china, india...they dont give a flying f00k. 

[Ghostsof1915]

Interesting note that there is still discussions with the US about the F-35. If negotiations don't work correctly we would buy the SAAB's as the second bidder.

I wonder if this is all a ploy to show America we're playing ball. Then say oh well the negotiations aren't what you promised, so we're walking. Then they can blame it on Lockheed/Martin.