• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

You ok with the US operating on Canadian soil?
Yep. In coordination with the CAF when it's determined that US assets are the most suitable response for a particular threat. Like when the F-22's from Alaska shot down the balloon over the Yukon last year.

Is Latvia OK with Canadian, Albanian, Czech, Danish, Icelandic, Italian, Montenegran, North Macedonian, Polish, Slovakian, Slovenian, Spanish and American troops operating on Latvian soil?
 
Yep. In coordination with the CAF when it's determined that US assets are the most suitable response for a particular threat. Like when the F-22's from Alaska shot down the balloon over the Yukon last year.

Is Latvia OK with Canadian, Albanian, Czech, Danish, Icelandic, Italian, Montenegran, North Macedonian, Polish, Slovakian, Slovenian, Spanish and American troops operating on Latvian soil?
That's over, not on.

Obviously, Latvia is ok with a multinational NATO presence. When the enemy is at the gate, it focuses the mind.

I'm talking about an Argentia or Okinawa type installation. I didn't raise the question because I think the US is the great boogyman. I raised it in the sense that, even for the likes of Latvia or Iceland, it is a sovereignty issue and I'm not sure the Canadian public would be ready for that.

We are in a bit of different situation than Europe. We are their northern flank. Push come to shove, I'm not sure the concept of 'coordination' would be top of their mind. I'm not exactly sure they would even seek permission to do something from, or over, us if urgency dictated.

Unfortunately, this is the position we find ourselves in because we don't pull our own weight.
 
That's over, not on.

Obviously, Latvia is ok with a multinational NATO presence. When the enemy is at the gate, it focuses the mind.

I'm talking about an Argentia or Okinawa type installation. I didn't raise the question because I think the US is the great boogyman. I raised it in the sense that, even for the likes of Latvia or Iceland, it is a sovereignty issue and I'm not sure the Canadian public would be ready for that.

We are in a bit of different situation than Europe. We are their northern flank. Push come to shove, I'm not sure the concept of 'coordination' would be top of their mind. I'm not exactly sure they would even seek permission to do something from, or over, us if urgency dictated.

Unfortunately, this is the position we find ourselves in because we don't pull our own weight.
Who says we need a permanent Okinawa type US installation in Canada in order to expand NORAD to the land and maritime domains? Canadian troops and ships already exercise in each others territory. And there's already agreements in place allowing Canadian or US troops to deploy across the border and fall under host country command in case of emergency.



This is nothing Earth shattering or new. With potential threats to Alaska and the Canadian Arctic growing from both Russia and China it makes sense to me to strengthen our co-operation, planning and interoperability to defend North America in all domains (I'd include cyber and space domains as well).
 
That's over, not on.

Obviously, Latvia is ok with a multinational NATO presence. When the enemy is at the gate, it focuses the mind.

I'm talking about an Argentia or Okinawa type installation. I didn't raise the question because I think the US is the great boogyman. I raised it in the sense that, even for the likes of Latvia or Iceland, it is a sovereignty issue and I'm not sure the Canadian public would be ready for that.

We are in a bit of different situation than Europe. We are their northern flank. Push come to shove, I'm not sure the concept of 'coordination' would be top of their mind. I'm not exactly sure they would even seek permission to do something from, or over, us if urgency dictated.

Unfortunately, this is the position we find ourselves in because we don't pull our own weight.
Naval Air Station Argentia and Fort McAndrew enter the chat. I was in HMCS Fraser when we visited the base just before it was fully shut down in 1994.

 
Strikes me that there is a difference between "Come on over. I need help." and "Hold the door. You need help."

Most people try to do as much as possible themselves out of a sense of self-respect.
 
There are more of us than you may think who would would not fit that mold.
Oh I get it, but the CAF, and specifically this site aren’t a good representation of the Canadian voter, or you wouldn’t have had JT getting more than one term, let alone multiple Trudeau PM’s, the first kick at that cat (PET) should have been a warning than JT was not a good thing.
 
We tend to hold Australia up as a model for defence procurement, but they have their own issues in that regards.

News that the Hunter class is being reviewed: Surface fleet review carries Hunter Class changes in February release, say industry insiders

Criticism of the competition that resulted in the GCS winning the RFP: Hunter-class Frigate Procurement Flawed: Review - Naval News

Other paywall sites are reporting everything from cuts to possible cancellation: Frigates in firing line as government plans naval overhaul

It will be very interesting to see what the outcome of all of this is, and any potential impact it might have on our program.
 
OTOH

... such is the strength of anti-American sentiment within the EU’s policy-making elite that they find it impossible to resist any opportunity to establish military operations that can operate independently of US influence.

The latest example of the EU’s desire to commit wilful acts of self-harm, in terms of safeguarding its interests, is clearly evident from the proposals currently under consideration to create its own naval force to protect commercial vessels from Houthi rebel attacks in the Red Sea.

Proposals for the establishment of an EU naval force are already said to be well-advanced, with final approval for its implementation due to be given at a meeting of EU foreign ministers on February 19.

...

The EU’s approach is in marked contrast to the operations currently being conducted by the US and UK, which have launched a series of air strikes against Houthi positions in Yemen as part of Operation Prosperity Guardian, and reflects the reservations many European leaders have expressed about the more robust approach being taken by Washington and London.

Their preference for forming their own force is partly motivated by their dislike of being under Washington’s command, even though the US has immensely more firepower at its disposal.

...

The EU might see itself as an emerging power, but its ineffectual response to the Red Sea crisis merely confirms the perception that its aspirations to become a dominant force in world affairs are doomed to fail.


I note that the USN doesn't turn down EU assets when they are offered. The Danes, Norwegians and Dutch, as well as the Brits and Italians, ever the French occasionally, all operate under American command even when they don't have a full suite of American gear.

As designed, SMART-L has a maximum range of 400 km (220 nmi) against patrol aircraft, and 65 km (35 nmi) against stealthy missiles.[2] A software upgrade, Extended Long Range (ELR) Mode, extends the maximum range for the detection of ballistic missiles to over 2000 km, since 2018 all 4 Zeven Provincien class Frigates of the Royal Netherlands Navy have been equipped with the update.[3]

On the 25th of September 2017, as part of the exercise Formidable Shield 2017 the SMART-L MM radar system mounted on the test tower at the Thales premises in Hengelo, detected and tracked a ballistic missile launched from the Hebrides in Scotland at an average range of more than 1500 km without difficulties. The Thales SMART-L Multi Mission radar in Hengelo detected the target as soon as it appeared over the horizon and maintained a stable track for more than 300 seconds. The track quality was sufficient to enable Launch On Remote by BMD-capable naval ships.[4]

Did we absolutely have to incur the additional costs of AEGIS? What, if any were the additional costs of adding and implementing AEGIS?
 
I note that the USN doesn't turn down EU assets when they are offered. The Danes, Norwegians and Dutch, as well as the Brits and Italians, ever the French occasionally, all operate under American command even when they don't have a full suite of American gear.
Did we absolutely have to incur the additional costs of AEGIS? What, if any were the additional costs of adding and implementing AEGIS?
I will point out that both the Norwegians and Spanish both operate the AEGIS combat system on their frigates, it is a demanding but top of the line system overall especially if paired with the cooperative engagement capability, which the CSC will have. Having both AEGIS and CEC is a game changer and will allow the RCN to seamlessly plug into US and other integrated allied aircraft, shore based and sea based sensor and strike platforms. I highly recommend watching the video below, it is hard to gauge the important of CSC without understanding it. Being able to get a single shared information picture across an entire formation and be able to jointly integrate firing against those targets is huge.

 
I will point out that both the Norwegians and Spanish both operate the AEGIS combat system on their frigates, it is a demanding but top of the line system overall especially if paired with the cooperative engagement capability, which the CSC will have. Having both AEGIS and CEC is a game changer and will allow the RCN to seamlessly plug into US and other integrated allied aircraft, shore based and sea based sensor and strike platforms. I highly recommend watching the video below, it is hard to gauge the important of CSC without understanding it. Being able to get a single shared information picture across an entire formation and be able to jointly integrate firing against those targets is huge.


I am a big fan of the CEC capability and would love to see it brought ashore for the CAF, especially for GBAD. It would simplify a large number of defensive scenarios at home and abroad.

1707419168544.png

Do you need AEGIS for CEC? And how many AEGIS systems are necessary? Could the cost have been reduced to allow funds to cover not only ships at sea but airfields ashore as well?
 
I will point out that both the Norwegians and Spanish both operate the AEGIS combat system on their frigates, it is a demanding but top of the line system overall especially if paired with the cooperative engagement capability, which the CSC will have. Having both AEGIS and CEC is a game changer and will allow the RCN to seamlessly plug into US and other integrated allied aircraft, shore based and sea based sensor and strike platforms. I highly recommend watching the video below, it is hard to gauge the important of CSC without understanding it. Being able to get a single shared information picture across an entire formation and be able to jointly integrate firing against those targets is huge.


You know, it occurs to me that there is some overlap among the CSC, BMD, IAMD, GBAD, CUAS and F35 programmes.

Harper's Air Force only wanted 65 F35s. Trudeau called for 88 to be purchased sometime in the future.

What happens if the Air Force reverts to the 65 and takes the money from those extra 23 and invested it into something based on CEC that integrated IAMD and GBAD-NASAMs?

A Joint programme.
 
You know, it occurs to me that there is some overlap among the CSC, BMD, IAMD, GBAD, CUAS and F35 programmes.

Harper's Air Force only wanted 65 F35s. Trudeau called for 88 to be purchased sometime in the future.

What happens if the Air Force reverts to the 65 and takes the money from those extra 23 and invested it into something based on CEC that integrated IAMD and GBAD-NASAMs?

A Joint programme.
How about Canada GTFU and buy it all.
 
You know, it occurs to me that there is some overlap among the CSC, BMD, IAMD, GBAD, CUAS and F35 programmes.

Harper's Air Force only wanted 65 F35s. Trudeau called for 88 to be purchased sometime in the future.

What happens if the Air Force reverts to the 65 and takes the money from those extra 23 and invested it into something based on CEC that integrated IAMD and GBAD-NASAMs?

A Joint programme.
Then the RCAF would not have enough fighters to fill the roles it is required to fill.

The CAF can't "do more with less" the CAF needs to do more with more. We have cut the fat, and the muscle, and now we are cutting bone. Any suggestion that involves the CAF getting less than is planned is a suggestion to make the CAF nothing more than a parade force.

We can do that with new build Spitfires and Enfields for far les than 65 F-35s.
 
Then the RCAF would not have enough fighters to fill the roles it is required to fill.

The CAF can't "do more with less" the CAF needs to do more with more. We have cut the fat, and the muscle, and now we are cutting bone. Any suggestion that involves the CAF getting less than is planned is a suggestion to make the CAF nothing more than a parade force.

We can do that with new build Spitfires and Enfields for far les than 65 F-35s.

Wasn't the RCAF planning to meet its taskings with 65 aircraft before Trudeau cancelled them all?

And aren't other nations cutting back on the number of F35s they are fielding as different options and challenges present themselves?
 
Wasn't the RCAF planning to meet its taskings with 65 aircraft before Trudeau cancelled them all?

And aren't other nations cutting back on the number of F35s they are fielding as different options and challenges present themselves?
the 65 was to provide the mandated 36 for NORAD. The bare minimum as usual
 
Wasn't the RCAF planning to meet its taskings with 65 aircraft before Trudeau cancelled them all?

And aren't other nations cutting back on the number of F35s they are fielding as different options and challenges present themselves?
Although they never said this publicly, they probably didn’t want to buy any F35’s at all.
We can whine and b*tch about the current clown and fruit loops show, but the government before this was much darker and dangerous when it came to military funding. Just my 2 cents, of course.
 
Wasn't the RCAF planning to meet its taskings with 65 aircraft before Trudeau cancelled them all?

And aren't other nations cutting back on the number of F35s they are fielding as different options and challenges present themselves?
Was the RCAF planning to do that, or was it told to make do until the government could make more spending palatable?

Canadians are like kids being told to eat their vegetables when it comes to defence spending. They won't do it unless pressured to do it, so sometimes you need to mix the vegetables in with some of the meat and condiments.

"Have a few peas, some steak, and 65 F-35s. Oh! Almost done, just one more mouthful of peas, steak, and another 30-40 F-35s..."
 
Back
Top