Reconstitution

[daftandbarmy]

Looks like we need strategic guidance with priorities…

Sounds alot like 'leadership', which can be a career limiting move these days you know

 

[Kirkhill]

That's actually my point.

All three services need more people assigned to maintaining their kit. Tying kit up because it can't be manned or maintained isn't the answer. The kit the CAF has has been deemed the least amount of kit necessary to meet our defence objectives. It and the services needed to keep it running have to be properly manned.

The CAF has grown its headquarters at a rate exceeding that of the operational elements. It's time to do a top to bottom review of the number of PYs sunk into Ottawa and reallocate a major slice of them to where it is needed to keep. The ongoing spiral will leave DND with nothing but a uniformed civil service at the rate its going. That's not worth $26 Billion.

I'm amazed at the amount of serviceable Leo 1s and M113s that are being donated to Ukraine after being hauled out of storage by nations that have been operating Leo 2s, CV90s and Marders for decades.

Apparently they not only survived their active service life intact but they were considered valuable enough to keep, store and maintain.

What is the penalty for a soldier that fails to maintain his rifle and returns it to stores in an unserviceable condition?

 

[Kirkhill]

The idea of “integrated security” underpinned the plan, Scholz told reporters on Wednesday, which he described as “meshing together all means and instruments to strengthen Germany’s security against external threats”.

“It’s not just about defence and the Bundeswehr but the whole spectrum of our security,” he said, saying the document covers “diplomacy just as much as the police and fire service, disaster relief, international development, cyber security and the resilience of our supply chains”.

Annalena Baerbock, the Green foreign minister, said security in the 21st century was not just about armies and diplomacy but ensuring that “I can buy essential medicines in the chemist, that I’m not spied on by China when chatting with friends or manipulated by Russian bots while scrolling on social media”.

Germany’s first-ever security strategy names Russia as ‘greatest threat’ to peace

China also labelled as rival as Berlin outlines plan to make Bundeswehr the ‘cornerstone’ of European defence

www.ft.com

Germany has a new Integrated Security policy which extends their discussion beyond the realm of soldiering and defence and brings security directly into the civilian realm.

One way to look at this is it buries defence in a morass of civilian worries.
The other way to look at this is it buries defence in a morass of civilian worries.

We are constantly driven to note that the civilians are so wrapped up in their "real lives": dental plans, schools, wokery, greenery, video games, smartphones etc that they have no bandwidth left for defence. Except when someone points out that 26 Billion Dollars would buy every Canadian a free Tablet. And they start wondering if they prefer the Snowbirds or a free Tablet.

The German tack may show promise. If it can show the threat to dental plans and free Tablets as a real security issue. If if can show the value, in Euros or Dollars, itemized line item by line item, of all of those things that the Germans rely on day by day: secure communications, warm homes, working lights, their own elections ... if they can show the value of their GDP and convince them of the costs of providing that lifestyle and maintaining that GDP and the reality of the threat to their warm homes .... then, perhaps the government can make the case that something must be done.

Then, if that, they can start to make the case of the need for more police, fire, ambulances, cybertechs, powerline techs, sigint and elint techs, agents, diplomats, satellites, surveilllance, patrols - RPAS, MPAs, UAVs, AOPSs, CSCs, SSKs, rangers, recce troops, and the ability to quickly eliminate those threats with F35s, NSMs, HIMARSs, PrSMs, Tomahawks, SM6s, Patriots and people willing to go and reclaim losses when the enemy wins. People with guns that need to be protected when they go to reclaim those losses. People that need lots of armour plate to protect them while they are at work. People that are the last resort. People that deserve support.

They need to sell the spectrum and show where that Last Resort fits on the spectrum. They need to sell the rainbow. Which colour is the Last Resort? Infra red or Ultra violet?

If you can tie the threat to the quality of life and the quality of life to the GDP then the value of security can be quantified. If that then each individual aspect of that list I just created above can be costed and justified against the threat to the way of life. At that point the cost of maintaining an SSK at sea, or an F35 on standby, or an Armoured Brigade in waiting can be set against the cost of that Free Tablet, or a cup of coffee from Tim Horton's.

And yes I know I mixed Canada and Germany there. Purposely. The Social Democrat strain is very strong in both countries and both political classes.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I would not be surprised one bit if that (peer pressure) was a major reason units/formations aren't "reconstituting".

If the Army/Navy needs airlift, and the RCAF is trying to reconstitute, I wouldn't want to be the person telling them that their operations are going to be highly affected.

Actually, the more I think about it, this is the "crew rest" argument/peer pressure on a larger scale.

It's really too bad th RCN doesn't have an air arm anymore. A few TN planes would be awesome.

 

[dimsum]

It's really too bad th RCN doesn't have an air arm anymore. A few TN planes would be awesome.

That would be the opposite of Reconstitution.

 

[Halifax Tar]

That would be the opposite of Reconstitution.

Lol fair... I may have dreamed off course there.

 

[Navy_Pete]

FTFY.

It sucks when the CDS orders a slow down to reconstitute and our political masters decide otherwise because we're losing face internationally.

Our allies are already aware; if push comes to shove I think they'd prefer not to have our ships there as they are more of a liability, so would likely be providing gas off site and covering other areas instead.

 

[Furniture]

Our allies are already aware; if push comes to shove I think they'd prefer not to have our ships there as they are more of a liability, so would likely be providing gas off site and covering other areas instead.

When I was sailing alongside our NATO allies back in 2015, most were in no better shape than what you describe the RCN in now. They might have kept the hull painted nicer, but they had a lot of old and broken kit.

 

[Navy_Pete]

When I was sailing alongside our NATO allies back in 2015, most were in no better shape than what you describe the RCN in now. They might have kept the hull painted nicer, but they had a lot of old and broken kit.

For sure, but they are also sailing in their own backyard and going back to their own homeport, so it's like us doing an exercise in Norfolk or Seattle. The other countries doing longer termed deployments on NATO outside their area are generally sending much better shaped ships (like the Absalon, or some of the new ships based on the FREMM).

Quite a bit different context to sending ships to the other side of the planet with no substantial support for 6-8 months at a time.

 

[Halifax Tar]

For sure, but they are also sailing in their own backyard and going back to their own homeport, so it's like us doing an exercise in Norfolk or Seattle. The other countries doing longer termed deployments on NATO outside their area are generally sending much better shaped ships (like the Absalon, or some of the new ships based on the FREMM).

Quite a bit different context to sending ships to the other side of the planet with no substantial support for 6-8 months at a time.

Every FREMM that joined us in 2020 had to RTB because something broke... One busted a shaft or some crap..

 

[Navy_Pete]

Every FREMM that joined us in 2020 had to RTB because something broke... One busted a shaft or some crap..

I think they are still in the 'new ship' portion of the bathtub curve, with design issues still being worked through. Pretty capable ships though, and the impression I got is they are being a bit cautious on it and also trying to make sure any warranty related work gets done.

We are on the far other side of the bathtub curve, with most mechanical systems past their design life and seeing a lot of long wear failures or first time failure modes because it's so old. Piping is blowing through, valves are holed through the body, gear teeth worn, electric motors unable to be rebuilt again etc.

The fun bit for us is a lot of this was purchased in bulk 30 years ago at build and almost never bought again, so we don't even have tech data, and have to figure things out from scratch. Pretty frequent where we can't find a fit/form replacement either, so unbolting an old valve frequently turns into reconfiguring piping with new flanges (and then can grow to replacing piping when you realize it's too worn to weld new flanges on).

 

[Lumber]

Our allies are already aware; if push comes to shove I think they'd prefer not to have our ships there as they are more of a liability, so would likely be providing gas off site and covering other areas instead.

I disagree with this completely. While long in the tooth, our ships boast some of best combat systems in the world for their class. Not only that, but Canadian ships have consistently demonstrated an ability and willingness to do things that other navies cannot or simply will not do.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I disagree with this completely. While long in the tooth, our ships boast some of best combat systems in the world for their class. Not only that, but Canadian ships have consistently demonstrated an ability and willingness to do things that other navies cannot or simply will not do.

Combat systems attached to a rusted out hull is still a liability in a real shooting match though, and have heard that right from our allies mouths. We try and play top tier, but really we're 2nd or 3rd tier equipment wise, with crews working miracles just to get from A to B.

Also hard to sell yourself as 'warfighters' when our ships ignore basic warship things, have things like video game machines in messes and CO's cabins are done up like some kind of hunting lodge.

We can easily do other things to free up actual assets with some recoverability left, but aside from being an outlying picket to act as an early warning, I don't think anyone would expect our ships to survive any actual combat damage.

 

[Lumber]

Combat systems attached to a rusted out hull is still a liability in a real shooting match though, and have heard that right from our allies mouths. We try and play top tier, but really we're 2nd or 3rd tier equipment wise, with crews working miracles just to get from A to B.

I said class for a reason. We don't have a legit long range air search radar, and no SAMs at all (PDMs shouldn't count as SAM), but for the jobs we are expected to do, and for the ranges that our weapons and sensors can reach, we absolutely do have 1st tier systems (caveat; ASW).

Also hard to sell yourself as 'warfighters' when our ships ignore basic warship things, have things like video game machines in messes and CO's cabins are done up like some kind of hunting lodge.

Not sure how morale features and cabin trim have anything to do with combat effectiveness.

We can easily do other things to free up actual assets with some recoverability left, but aside from being an outlying picket to act as an early warning, I don't think anyone would expect our ships to survive any actual combat damage.

Just about every NATO navy is operating frigates that were built in the late 80s/early 90s. Those frigate now have the same or worse level of combat capability as the CPFs. Should we just discount half of the entire NATO surface fleet? Should we really discount all of them, and eleiminate all of their capabilities, simply because if they do get hit, they might not survive?

 

[Furniture]

Combat systems attached to a rusted out hull is still a liability in a real shooting match though, and have heard that right from our allies mouths. We try and play top tier, but really we're 2nd or 3rd tier equipment wise, with crews working miracles just to get from A to B.

Also hard to sell yourself as 'warfighters' when our ships ignore basic warship things, have things like video game machines in messes and CO's cabins are done up like some kind of hunting lodge.

We can easily do other things to free up actual assets with some recoverability left, but aside from being an outlying picket to act as an early warning, I don't think anyone would expect our ships to survive any actual combat damage.

I get that this stuff is your personal bugbear, but morale matters.

Yes, we should have spent more time and effort on mechanical things, but doing so at the cost of crew morale isn't the right solution either. We could have the best maintained ships in the world, but they are useless if nobody wants to sail in them.

 

[Kilted]

I disagree with this completely. While long in the tooth, our ships boast some of best combat systems in the world for their class. Not only that, but Canadian ships have consistently demonstrated an ability and willingness to do things that other navies cannot or simply will not do.

You mean spontaneously catching on fire and occasionally crashing into each other?

 

[Navy_Pete]

I get that this stuff is your personal bugbear, but morale matters.

Yes, we should have spent more time and effort on mechanical things, but doing so at the cost of crew morale isn't the right solution either. We could have the best maintained ships in the world, but they are useless if nobody wants to sail in them.

I don't disagree that morale matters, but some of this stuff is outright just taking the piss of the standards that are in place, and none of it is even bothered jumping through the hoops we're supposed to when not following the configuration. The things we're talking about aren't even allowed on a fishing boat or other commercial ship the way they are done, let alone a warship.

Weirdly 1/2" ratchet straps around power cables isn't recognized as a proper securing method, and all deck coverings, wall coverings, and any other construction material is fairly intensively tested before it can go on a commercial ship. Our rules are stricter because of things like lessons learned from actual wars, but even just normal collisions or fires it's not a great idea, and we're punching way above our weight there per capita for bad shit happening.

For the size of our navy, we have several orders of magnitudes more fires compared to commercial ships, and 30-50 times more compared to other allied navies, so we're adding a lot of risk to our people for 'morale'. When you add on the poor material state, massively reduced crew and experience/training gaps, it's definitely worse in reality than what is on paper, and what's on paper is bad.

If we did things with a bit of common sense and at least met commercial standards, it would be okay, but right now we're going full ostrich mode and hoping for the best.

Drives me crazy because the standards get put in place only because people have been killed at some point because of it, and things like wood paneling were banned off warships after a few people got cut in half by decorative paneling following an explosion. Even commercial rules come from people getting killed at some point, as they only fix things if the cost of not fixing things is higher than the failure cost.

If we at least had some kind of plan to pry it off before hitting actual combat that would be one thing, but instead we just decide to bury our heads up our own asses and assume it will be fine, without even bothering to put it on paper so no one can be held accountable if things go to shit later on.

And for context, two minor fires this weekend alone, one ship is running around with a similar defect to what took out PRO, and not uncommon to have fitted systems not work properly, detection down, etc.. We have multiple near misses every month, usually one or more actual fires every month, and that's with about a dozen ships actually out and about.

 

[dimsum]

You mean spontaneously catching on fire and occasionally crashing into each other?

USN 7th fleet and KNM Helge Ingstad enter the chat

 

[daftandbarmy]

For the size of our navy, we have several orders of magnitudes more fires compared to commercial ships, and 30-50 times more compared to other allied navies, so we're adding a lot of risk to our people for 'morale'. When you add on the poor material state, massively reduced crew and experience/training gaps, it's definitely worse in reality than what is on paper, and what's on paper is bad.

Well, they invented the 'Kootenay Hatch' for a reason ...

The explosion that changed the Navy - Legion Magazine

An overheated gearbox on HMCS Kootenay set off a fire that took nine lives The worst peacetime disaster in Canadian naval history occurred on Oct. 23, 1969, when nine crew were killed and another 53 injured in an explosion and fire aboard HMCS Kootenay. The incident marked the last time Canadian...

legionmagazine.com

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I don't disagree that morale matters, but some of this stuff is outright just taking the piss of the standards that are in place, and none of it is even bothered jumping through the hoops we're supposed to when not following the configuration. The things we're talking about aren't even allowed on a fishing boat or other commercial ship the way they are done, let alone a warship.

Weirdly 1/2" ratchet straps around power cables isn't recognized as a proper securing method, and all deck coverings, wall coverings, and any other construction material is fairly intensively tested before it can go on a commercial ship. Our rules are stricter because of things like lessons learned from actual wars, but even just normal collisions or fires it's not a great idea, and we're punching way above our weight there per capita for bad shit happening.

For the size of our navy, we have several orders of magnitudes more fires compared to commercial ships, and 30-50 times more compared to other allied navies, so we're adding a lot of risk to our people for 'morale'. When you add on the poor material state, massively reduced crew and experience/training gaps, it's definitely worse in reality than what is on paper, and what's on paper is bad.

If we did things with a bit of common sense and at least met commercial standards, it would be okay, but right now we're going full ostrich mode and hoping for the best.

Drives me crazy because the standards get put in place only because people have been killed at some point because of it, and things like wood paneling were banned off warships after a few people got cut in half by decorative paneling following an explosion. Even commercial rules come from people getting killed at some point, as they only fix things if the cost of not fixing things is higher than the failure cost.

If we at least had some kind of plan to pry it off before hitting actual combat that would be one thing, but instead we just decide to bury our heads up our own asses and assume it will be fine, without even bothering to put it on paper so no one can be held accountable if things go to shit later on.

And for context, two minor fires this weekend alone, one ship is running around with a similar defect to what took out PRO, and not uncommon to have fitted systems not work properly, detection down, etc.. We have multiple near misses every month, usually one or more actual fires every month, and that's with about a dozen ships actually out and about.

Don't worry with the RCN policy of disseminating information, lessons learned and Accident Analysis Reports, those things won't happen again.......oh wait.