Spare a thought for the Canadian Coast Guard. We have the longest coastlines of any country and move 200 Billion dollars of commerce a year by water but we don’t take it seriously enough.
More than 100 vessels and struggling with a backlog of recapitalization. Similar issues in attracting and retaining skilled labour - unionized and encumbered with archaic collective agreements and rules. Trapped by the same protectionist shipbuilding policy that makes acquisition and repairs very slow and expensive.
It's great to hear such honest, clear statements about the challenges we face. If only the rest of the government could be so forthright. I hope you can get a response from the defence minister about how he's going to help Topshee do his job.
Great interview/article Paul and kudos to this Naval Officer for publicly revealing what those of us who have served, have known for decades. I just watched the MND on TV deny that the situation with the Canadian Forces is “dire”, but in terms of outlook, many of us who have worn the uniform believe it is well beyond dire - it is approaching hopeless. Our politicians don’t seem to be able to see, care or understand how bad things have become and continue to pay lip service to the security and defence of our nation. Current and past governments have neglected our military for decades and Canadians themselves, apparently have no desire and see no reason to serve a neglected military - hence the disastrous recruitment numbers.
I joined the Student Militia program in Toronto as a 16 year old rifleman recruit in the summer of 1963, joined the Canadian Officer’s Training Corps in 1964 when I started U of T, and served for two years. Even then it was obvious how starved of resources the forces were. I recall exercises devoid of blank ammunition wherein we would shout “bang” in lieu of pulling a trigger. I served as a Unit Medical Officer in a Toronto Militia unit in the late 1980s, again in a low-resources environment. Will we NEVER learn to resource our defence establishment at an adequate level? We are leaning far too much on our American friends, whose patience with us is running out, and the world faces several serious challenges which we remain completely unable to address with our military, and we have little hope of improving the situation.
Thanks for this, Paul, we don't often get such a measured, adult response to a journalist's probing. You haven't commented critically on the interview - will there be a follow-up?
First Canada has to scrap its ridiculous policy of building war ships in Canada. It is too expensive for a Lilliputian navy like ours. Current estimates show each new frigate will cost north of $5 billion dollars. We could buy a new Arleigh Burke class US destroyer, an extremely capable war ship, for between $ 1 and $2 billion dollars each. That means we could have a larger fleet befitting a country with long coastlines and commitments to its allies. And what would work better for interoperability with the US Navy than a US-built ship?
A great frank and concise expose of the shape of the Fleet -- kudos Paul for jumping on and undertaking the interview in such a timely and professional fashion.
No this isn’t the first time the Navy has been in such a state -- I served at sea through the 1980s (ie just before Admiral Topshee joined) and we had to take the fleet that existed to the first Gulf War (1990-91), fortunately making it through. But the world situation now is much more dire. Where back then we didn’t know we were on the cusp of the end of the Cold War, now it looks more like the verge of a Third World War. We as a country have been living off the so-called “peace dividend” for the last three decades. This problem has been allowed to fester and needs to be solved soon.
I’ve studied and written much about the history of the RCN -- a quick survey that might add context to this discussion can be found here:
Excellent reportage. It is so refreshing to be presented with the fact about a 3D problem instead of the cardboard cut outs used for partisan crucifixions. Keep up the good work, Paul.
One fundamental problem clearly identified, with the other two alluded to. The first problem is procurement, and the message has been the same all of my adult life. Apparently it's a conundrum whatever side of the aisle has the football. The second is personnel churn, which the military never seems publicly to get to the bottom of. The reasons for churn may be that pay is so bad, that members compete with the dispossessed at food banks, and that they have to live in, as Topshee describes, a close, tactical environment at sea that is so shop-worn it's supposed to be de-commissioned, rather than operational. The third problem evidently is the consistent failure of professional and political leadership, enabling this travesty to normalise for decades and possibly generations. Everyone talks a good game, but nothing changes - procurement is the opposite of all three of fast, good and cheap, every time, and the rank and file have to worry whether they and their families can afford to live, and, whether, with working conditions so bad, they even want to do it, in the military.
The business world, with relatively trivial stakes, seems generally to have figured out equipment procurement and employee retention a long, long time ago. I understand that the state military model has special needs, but still, we appear to be so inept at even the basics. Topshee appears to be proposing that to solve this, new (for the military) paradigms need to be deployed. I don't doubt his sincerity, but we have heard this all before. Where does Topshee think this is going? The current government has already spent so much political capital on this, that it's unlikely to do more before an election, and a possible new government, as is the pattern, will take years to grasp the problems before falling in line with the status quo.
So what can the Brass do in the meantime to solve this internally, that doesnt cost the money they don't have? From the interview, it's not clear that Topshee knows either.
It's that darn Oppenheimer, who "really did blow up the whole world".
He blew up the world where these guys could stand on guard against Russian and Chinese Commies; now we can't even discuss harming Russia physically while they bomb daycares, because of Dr. O's invention forbids it
The Boomers marched against war in general. The millennials were marched off to another one, against "Terror", and it never really ended (troops still in Iraq), but nobody has any sense that joining the military is a good thing to do; you'll be sent off to bomb people who don't possess Dr. O's invention. They may be individually dangerous, but mainly poor and pathetic.
Give me a good reason to pay for a military. There's not a single non-Bomb country that threatens us in the slightest, and they can't defend us against the Bomb countries. All we use them for is "supporting America and Britain".
Lester Pearson came up with a suggestion: one could have a military to enforce peace agreements. I just finally tackled "Shake Hands with the Devil" this year, and still feel crushed by it. The upshot was plain as day: the peacekeeping failed and 800,000 were murdered because those same Americans, Brits, and NATO powers couldn't be bothered to support any military effort that was merely humanitarian, not directly profitable to their needs. So the Pearson reason for even having a military is now missing.
If we’re already degrading the capacities of the Canadian Surface Combatant Ship - should there not be a discussion about buying ‘off the rack’ (as John Dowell suggests) for far cheaper. Use some of the difference in the cost to pay people in New Brunswick to dig holes and then fill them in or what have you to compensate.
Spare a thought for the Canadian Coast Guard. We have the longest coastlines of any country and move 200 Billion dollars of commerce a year by water but we don’t take it seriously enough.
More than 100 vessels and struggling with a backlog of recapitalization. Similar issues in attracting and retaining skilled labour - unionized and encumbered with archaic collective agreements and rules. Trapped by the same protectionist shipbuilding policy that makes acquisition and repairs very slow and expensive.
It's great to hear such honest, clear statements about the challenges we face. If only the rest of the government could be so forthright. I hope you can get a response from the defence minister about how he's going to help Topshee do his job.
Great interview/article Paul and kudos to this Naval Officer for publicly revealing what those of us who have served, have known for decades. I just watched the MND on TV deny that the situation with the Canadian Forces is “dire”, but in terms of outlook, many of us who have worn the uniform believe it is well beyond dire - it is approaching hopeless. Our politicians don’t seem to be able to see, care or understand how bad things have become and continue to pay lip service to the security and defence of our nation. Current and past governments have neglected our military for decades and Canadians themselves, apparently have no desire and see no reason to serve a neglected military - hence the disastrous recruitment numbers.
I joined the Student Militia program in Toronto as a 16 year old rifleman recruit in the summer of 1963, joined the Canadian Officer’s Training Corps in 1964 when I started U of T, and served for two years. Even then it was obvious how starved of resources the forces were. I recall exercises devoid of blank ammunition wherein we would shout “bang” in lieu of pulling a trigger. I served as a Unit Medical Officer in a Toronto Militia unit in the late 1980s, again in a low-resources environment. Will we NEVER learn to resource our defence establishment at an adequate level? We are leaning far too much on our American friends, whose patience with us is running out, and the world faces several serious challenges which we remain completely unable to address with our military, and we have little hope of improving the situation.
Excellent. Now do the same with the commanders' of the Canadian Army and the RCAF. Great piece.
Thanks for this, Paul, we don't often get such a measured, adult response to a journalist's probing. You haven't commented critically on the interview - will there be a follow-up?
First Canada has to scrap its ridiculous policy of building war ships in Canada. It is too expensive for a Lilliputian navy like ours. Current estimates show each new frigate will cost north of $5 billion dollars. We could buy a new Arleigh Burke class US destroyer, an extremely capable war ship, for between $ 1 and $2 billion dollars each. That means we could have a larger fleet befitting a country with long coastlines and commitments to its allies. And what would work better for interoperability with the US Navy than a US-built ship?
A great frank and concise expose of the shape of the Fleet -- kudos Paul for jumping on and undertaking the interview in such a timely and professional fashion.
No this isn’t the first time the Navy has been in such a state -- I served at sea through the 1980s (ie just before Admiral Topshee joined) and we had to take the fleet that existed to the first Gulf War (1990-91), fortunately making it through. But the world situation now is much more dire. Where back then we didn’t know we were on the cusp of the end of the Cold War, now it looks more like the verge of a Third World War. We as a country have been living off the so-called “peace dividend” for the last three decades. This problem has been allowed to fester and needs to be solved soon.
I’ve studied and written much about the history of the RCN -- a quick survey that might add context to this discussion can be found here:
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/royal-canadian-navy
Excellent reportage. It is so refreshing to be presented with the fact about a 3D problem instead of the cardboard cut outs used for partisan crucifixions. Keep up the good work, Paul.
And this, Sir, is why I subscribed: timely, clear communication about significant national issues.
Thank you.
Excellent. I second calls to hit up all the 3-stars. Thank you for starting to paint this picture when no one else in the media is so willing.
Will this be a topic tonight on the Power Panel Paul? I highly doubt it. (I write this about an hour before you go on air I assume?)
One fundamental problem clearly identified, with the other two alluded to. The first problem is procurement, and the message has been the same all of my adult life. Apparently it's a conundrum whatever side of the aisle has the football. The second is personnel churn, which the military never seems publicly to get to the bottom of. The reasons for churn may be that pay is so bad, that members compete with the dispossessed at food banks, and that they have to live in, as Topshee describes, a close, tactical environment at sea that is so shop-worn it's supposed to be de-commissioned, rather than operational. The third problem evidently is the consistent failure of professional and political leadership, enabling this travesty to normalise for decades and possibly generations. Everyone talks a good game, but nothing changes - procurement is the opposite of all three of fast, good and cheap, every time, and the rank and file have to worry whether they and their families can afford to live, and, whether, with working conditions so bad, they even want to do it, in the military.
The business world, with relatively trivial stakes, seems generally to have figured out equipment procurement and employee retention a long, long time ago. I understand that the state military model has special needs, but still, we appear to be so inept at even the basics. Topshee appears to be proposing that to solve this, new (for the military) paradigms need to be deployed. I don't doubt his sincerity, but we have heard this all before. Where does Topshee think this is going? The current government has already spent so much political capital on this, that it's unlikely to do more before an election, and a possible new government, as is the pattern, will take years to grasp the problems before falling in line with the status quo.
So what can the Brass do in the meantime to solve this internally, that doesnt cost the money they don't have? From the interview, it's not clear that Topshee knows either.
It's that darn Oppenheimer, who "really did blow up the whole world".
He blew up the world where these guys could stand on guard against Russian and Chinese Commies; now we can't even discuss harming Russia physically while they bomb daycares, because of Dr. O's invention forbids it
The Boomers marched against war in general. The millennials were marched off to another one, against "Terror", and it never really ended (troops still in Iraq), but nobody has any sense that joining the military is a good thing to do; you'll be sent off to bomb people who don't possess Dr. O's invention. They may be individually dangerous, but mainly poor and pathetic.
Give me a good reason to pay for a military. There's not a single non-Bomb country that threatens us in the slightest, and they can't defend us against the Bomb countries. All we use them for is "supporting America and Britain".
Lester Pearson came up with a suggestion: one could have a military to enforce peace agreements. I just finally tackled "Shake Hands with the Devil" this year, and still feel crushed by it. The upshot was plain as day: the peacekeeping failed and 800,000 were murdered because those same Americans, Brits, and NATO powers couldn't be bothered to support any military effort that was merely humanitarian, not directly profitable to their needs. So the Pearson reason for even having a military is now missing.
If we’re already degrading the capacities of the Canadian Surface Combatant Ship - should there not be a discussion about buying ‘off the rack’ (as John Dowell suggests) for far cheaper. Use some of the difference in the cost to pay people in New Brunswick to dig holes and then fill them in or what have you to compensate.