I'll believe it when I see it.
You're asking more than our current government is willing to giveWell be a good partner...
FTFYWell be a good FREELOADING virtue signalling partner...
I pray so. Unfortunately, Trudeau's ego - no one is going to tell me what to do. Appointing Blair is proof IMHO.I think that there is significant and very real international political pressure pounding on the Cdn gov't now to increase defence spending.
That will do nothing to the government, but will hurt the CAF.I pray so. Unfortunately, Trudeau's ego - no one is going to tell me what to do. Appointing Blair is proof IMHO.
The only way forward is to remove all Cdn senior officers from positions of importance in NATO.
They are also very aggressively boosting their navy (ships and infrastructure) and much more likely to deliver new ships before we do.Meanwhile in Poland
When they have Star Destroyers, the CAF will probably be rolling around in a Scooby Doo van.
The only problem with that is when we give up capabilities, then discover we actually need them, the learning curve is steep and costly. Of course, the people who make the cuts rarely are the ones who have to pay the price, so I'm sure it will happen....I usually feel like we are trying to do so many things concurrently we actually get very little done, so would be more efficient if we just focused on doing a lot less, but do it really well.
This is true, but I would argue we don't actually have the effective capabilities we think we have anyway. The rust out of the tanks, and basic survivability of our ships (or things like CBRN) is two obvious examples.The only problem with that is when we give up capabilities, then discover we actually need them, the learning curve is steep and costly. Of course, the people who make the cuts rarely are the ones who have to pay the price, so I'm sure it will happen....
This is true, but I would argue we don't actually have the effective capabilities we think we have anyway. The rust out of the tanks, and basic survivability of our ships (or things like CBRN) is two obvious examples.
But it could just mean scaling down to what we can actually support, so for the Navy example I think we could chop down to 8 frigates now, which is still probably more than we can actually crew and do the maintenance/repairs on, but 12 is a pipe dream. Trying to do a bit of fixes to all of them mean that major issues just get 'accepted' so all the background for some kind of disastorous BOI is already in place. Our DWPs are now at about 5 times the number of work hours as the 280s at the end of life, and that's not even doing all the basic repairs to the hull and mechanical systems that we know about.
8 Wouldn't really cover our needs though, and probably give us a boat per coast available and that's it. Really the Navy should be our largest branch, and the army our smallest.This is true, but I would argue we don't actually have the effective capabilities we think we have anyway. The rust out of the tanks, and basic survivability of our ships (or things like CBRN) is two obvious examples.
But it could just mean scaling down to what we can actually support, so for the Navy example I think we could chop down to 8 frigates now, which is still probably more than we can actually crew and do the maintenance/repairs on, but 12 is a pipe dream. Trying to do a bit of fixes to all of them mean that major issues just get 'accepted' so all the background for some kind of disastorous BOI is already in place. Our DWPs are now at about 5 times the number of work hours as the 280s at the end of life, and that's not even doing all the basic repairs to the hull and mechanical systems that we know about.
Zero. #defencespendingisnonlinearSuppose the CSC fleet were chopped to 8 from 15. How many SSKs and OPVs could be put to sea instead?
If CSCs were cut, the CAF would just get less... If the CAF asked for 8 CSCs and 10 OPVs, the CAF would likely get 8 OPVs and the rest of the saved money would go toward buying more strategic votes.Suppose the CSC fleet were chopped to 8 from 15. How many SSKs and OPVs could be put to sea instead?
If CSCs were cut, the CAF would just get less... If the CAF asked for 8 CSCs and 10 OPVs, the CAF would likely get 8 OPVs and the rest of the saved money would go toward buying more strategic votes.
8 Wouldn't really cover our needs though, and probably give us a boat per coast available and that's it. Really the Navy should be our largest branch, and the army our smallest.
Given that the CAF is being killed by rust-out and lack of replacements, due to intentionally byzantine policies and lack of interest from the GoC, I'd say my statement aligns more with reality than your idea of less CSCs for more varied platforms.And then we try to have debates about what constitutes a rational belief....![]()
No argument.Given that the CAF is being killed by rust-out and lack of replacements, due to intentionally byzantine policies and lack of interest from the GoC, I'd say my statement aligns more with reality than your idea of less CSCs for more varied platforms.
Would we not want more ssk's? Less crew and long term less maintenance cost I thought?But if we had 8 CSCs, 8 SSKs and 8 OPVs then we would have a CSC, an SSK and an OPV active off of each coast. Would that be better than a CSC at home and a couple of CSCs in the First Island Chain?
I'm cynical enough to think that 15 was chosen so that we could decrease the actual number at some point, but we absolutely do not have anywhere near the infrastructure or resources to be able to crew or maintain 15 of those at the operation pace the RCN is beating the hell out of the CPFs with. The amount of stuff on that ship is mind boggling, so the additional LOE for all the interference items will be big, and the crew is smaller than ever.Suppose the CSC fleet were chopped to 8 from 15. How many SSKs and OPVs could be put to sea instead?