Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
You get what you pay for. From a government spending point of view, the US and state governments spend less. Thus governments in the US can afford to spend more on highways. Watch any Canadian video blogs, their truckers know of the better and safer highways in the US.
We are getting a little off topic but truckers use the cheapest routes to get their goods to destination. Canada's population density doesn't allow for 4 lane highways all over the place. Healthcare expense is not a problem for defence procurement, it is all sorts of other stupid problem expenditures like multiculturalism, First Nations handouts, failed immigration polices, the CBC, and most of all politicians and incompetent bureaucrats at DND.
 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
Let's get off the truckers for now, shall we? Sea Toby, maybe you could try keeping your data relevant than bringing up something like Canadian trucker blogs in a bloody Navy discussion...
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I think a recurring issue Canada will face on the domestic front is the close proximity to the US and therefore the perception that Canada is to some extent under the protection of the US. This will unfortunately always be in the minds of the lazy and disinterested when looking at the price tags of new defence equipment.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
I do recall my FATHER who spent a winter in the Pas, Manitoba required a hip replacement. In Canada he was informed there was at least a 11 months wait for such a medical procedure in the Pas, whereas he was able to have this procedure done in Lebanon, Missouri within two weeks when he returned to the US as soon as his doctor could perform this operation. Medical care in Canada maybe free, but it is definitely RATIONED. Folks can spin politics all they w/ish, but I shall stand with my family's personal experiences. No patient should have to wait 11 or more months for medical care. Over and out.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Look Toby we can all talk around in circles on this forever and never agree, which is fine but completely off track on a thread about the RCN.

At the end of the day someone suffering from cancer and being cared for under a free public health system probably wouldn't give a proverbial about whether an American believes national health systems reduce a nations ability to spend money on other things. An American without private health, realising that they are going to die because they can't afford the drugs they need to live would probably have very strong feelings on the matter, which I doubt would align with yours.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Short finals

Anything off topic is getting deleted without further discussion
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I think a recurring issue Canada will face on the domestic front is the close proximity to the US and therefore the perception that Canada is to some extent under the protection of the US. This will unfortunately always be in the minds of the lazy and disinterested when looking at the price tags of new defence equipment.
You are absolutely correct! Both Australia and Canada have similar economies and long coastlines. Naval needs are somewhat different. However in Canada, both voters and politicians, use the neighbour to the south as the fail safe which explains the sorry state of our navy to a large extent. Australia's geographic reality does not allow for this. To a lesser extent this applies to our other services as well including our coast guard.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Yep. You can see this elsewhere, e.g. Ireland. It implicitly (though not explicitly - oh no!) relies on the UK for defence, & has done since independence.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Yep. You can see this elsewhere, e.g. Ireland. It implicitly (though not explicitly - oh no!) relies on the UK for defence, & has done since independence.
Well we have seen it over the last couple of years in Australia.
1. A new white paper aiming to engage with and welcome China (where its predecessor clearly identified Chinas rise as the greatest single threat to Australia's security)
2. An arrangement seeking to draw US forces back into the region and
3. The clincher a massive reduction in Australian defence spending making it impossible to afford the capabilities outlined as being required to support the previous paper.

Three stage plan, pretend the threat doesn't exist, con a mate to come around and look tough in front of you neighbours, then sit on your backside and make no effort to do what you have been told you need to do.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Well we have seen it over the last couple of years in Australia.
1. A new white paper aiming to engage with and welcome China (where its predecessor clearly identified Chinas rise as the greatest single threat to Australia's security)
2. An arrangement seeking to draw US forces back into the region and
3. The clincher a massive reduction in Australian defence spending making it impossible to afford the capabilities outlined as being required to support the previous paper.

Three stage plan, pretend the threat doesn't exist, con a mate to come around and look tough in front of you neighbours, then sit on your backside and make no effort to do what you have been told you need to do.
I don't fully understand Australia's long-term defence plans but from what I see Australia is at least doing a lot more capital investment in its navy and airforce compared to Canada. In Canada we just talk about what is needed. The govt has done squat for the navy for years and their big talking point for our National Ship Building Program is they have selected two shipyards to do the work...big frigging deal especially now that we have likely lost HMCS Protecteur for good. My worst fear now is they will spend millions of dollars trying to repair a 45 year old ship rather than looking for a used replacement vessel to either buy or lease until something is actually built. (guess it will have to be a really long lease).
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Yep. You can see this elsewhere, e.g. Ireland. It implicitly (though not explicitly - oh no!) relies on the UK for defence, & has done since independence.
It is interesting that Denmark, a country with 1/6 the population of Canada and 1/5 the GDP of Canada, has a navy with 7 frigates compared to our 12 and two combat support ships (Absalon) along with several ocean patrol vessels and icebreakers. Some of these assets are used for protecting Greenland. They do a better job of protecting their Arctic assets even though they could likely download this expense and responsibility to the US like Canada does to a large extent. Canada could learn a lot from the Danes.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
It is interesting that Denmark, a country with 1/6 the population of Canada and 1/5 the GDP of Canada, has a navy with 7 frigates compared to our 12 and two combat support ships (Absalon) along with several ocean patrol vessels and icebreakers. Some of these assets are used for protecting Greenland. They do a better job of protecting their Arctic assets even though they could likely download this expense and responsibility to the US like Canada does to a large extent. Canada could learn a lot from the Danes.
You could almost call it post colonial Anglo Saxon laziness.

I can almost perceive that there is an assumption by the ruling classes of the predominately English speaking, former UK colonies that were granted, as opposed to having to fight or strive for, independence / self government, that they will always have a great protector and benefactor. They are sort of like adult children who never want to leave home.
 

TopGuns

New Member
Glad to see the Protecteur is back in the harbour. Hopefully the damage is minimal or she probably will become the next RIMPAC/SINKEX target. To make up for the lack of a west coast AOR until the new ships are ready, what about the USNS Rainier or Bridge!? they are being decommissioned just to save some cash....might get a steal to lease them for a few years!?

On a side note, anyone have any experience with GCCS-M functionality on the Victoria Class Subs?
 

Sea Toby

New Member
It is interesting that Denmark, a country with 1/6 the population of Canada and 1/5 the GDP of Canada, has a navy with 7 frigates compared to our 12 and two combat support ships (Absalon) along with several ocean patrol vessels and icebreakers. Some of these assets are used for protecting Greenland. They do a better job of protecting their Arctic assets even though they could likely download this expense and responsibility to the US like Canada does to a large extent. Canada could learn a lot from the Danes.
The truth is that Canadians have higher priorities than their navy. For example, the province of British Columbia has a larger fleet of ferries than the Royal Canadian Navy has ships.
 

TopGuns

New Member
The truth is that Canadians have higher priorities than their navy. For example, the province of British Columbia has a larger fleet of ferries than the Royal Canadian Navy has ships.
While I agree with your "priorities" comment (although they are mis-guided IMHO, we would be far better off with a larger Naval fleet than some F-35s), I have to disagree on the fleet size comparison....BC ferries is rocking 35 ferries...The Navy operates 15 warships, 2 support tankers, 12 minesweepers, 8 patrol-trainers and 4 submarines (I'm also not including the Oriole, I mean, come on!, its a sailboat). Even taking into account another destroyer down, a tanker caught fire and another sub down due to a bad generator....the fleet size is pretty comparable......if you can actually compare Naval ships to ferries :D
 
Last edited:

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
For example, the province of British Columbia has a larger fleet of ferries than the Royal Canadian Navy has ships.
Without those ferries who will the good folk of BC get around? Norwegian ferry companies have more vessels than the Norwegian Navy, I don't see your point.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Without those ferries who will the good folk of BC get around? Norwegian ferry companies have more vessels than the Norwegian Navy, I don't see your point.
After the fast ferry fiasco on which the BC govt wasted 800 million building two ships locally they have gone back to outsourcing ships. Perhaps the federal government should take note and have at least a few ships outsourced to foreign yards to start off our naval replacement program.
 

Blackshoe

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
especially now that we have likely lost HMCS Protecteur for good.
Is the damage that bad? Or is it more related to your following statement in that post, that cost of repairs+age of vessel+remaining service life=not worth the cost of repairing her.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Is the damage that bad? Or is it more related to your following statement in that post, that cost of repairs+age of vessel+remaining service life=not worth the cost of repairing her.
The latter part of my statement is why a lease is the way to go. I don't know the extent of the damage but navy sources stated it was a very serious event that occurred in the engine room so there would likely be expensive gear beyond salvage making any repair very expensive. It is also a steam propulsion system I believe.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
Without those ferries who will the good folk of BC get around? Norwegian ferry companies have more vessels than the Norwegian Navy, I don't see your point.
The point I am making is that ONE province of Canada has almost as many ships as the entire country's RCN. Their ferries are well funded, their navy isn't. The RCN is facing a lengthly period of time with zero replenishment ships, I doubt whether their ferries would go so long without a ferry. Replacement replenishment ships should have entered the navy ten years ago, and they should have been bought a few years before that. Do the Canadian politicians have any shame over this matter? Obviously not. The Canadians are telling NATO, a organization they are proud being a member of, they are offering NATO frigates with zero support.
 
Top