Do you have a source for the RCN wanting heavy icebreakers? You state that "this has been a Navy want for a while". I was heavily involved in RCN Arctic ops when I served (2013-2022) and this is the first I'm hearing of that being a desire.
I was going to address this lol. I have been gracious in the last few days to hear from many a people, and, while it seems some are adamant on this, I believe some of my sources are misconstructing or wrong on certain fronts involving this, and I do apologize. There seems to have be a failing on some of my more trusted sources on this file, whom have been adamant that this was something, but, recent people such as yourself Mr. Pougnet, whom would know better, have come out against this, so I chalk this up to bad information on my end. I do humbly apologize.
Thank you. I've been out of the CAF since 2022, so I don't see any official information anymore. So, there might be some truth to it. Afterall, every rumour usually has at least one grain of truth to it.
Im sure there is at least one person who has probably made it their whole identity in the last few years and now will painstakingly pitch it at every opportunity. I think we all know a person like that. 🤣
From my (limited, I’m not a defence insider) understanding: A lot of the Icebreaker talk is in response to high-level discussions between government and the CAF on what specific systems and platforms are needed to execute on the missions set out in Our North, Strong and Free.
Directly from the policy update:
“We must place particular focus on defending the Arctic and North and its approaches against new and accelerating threats through credible deterrence. We will secure our Arctic and North by increasing the presence, reach, mobility and responsiveness of the Canadian Armed Forces in the region, and along our coasts and maritime approaches. We will also develop greater striking power to deter adversaries and keep threats farther from our shores.”
So the CAF says, we’d need a new icebreaking ship to achieve ‘credible deterance against new threats’ in the arctic. However, I don’t belive it is something that either the Naval Requirements or Naval Capabilities teams are working on at all. They like the covette project and would rather do that, but it’ll ultimately be up Government on what gets funded.
Agree there is not much new here. Could all be hot air.
I am baffled that both major parties are now pushing for heavy icebreakers in the Navy. Why anyone in he Navy would want more icebreakers over and above what is already in the pipeline for the Coast Guard, as opposed to doing more Navy-like things like operating more submarines, is a mystery.
Also, I would rather Carney committed to all 12 submarines rather than all 15 vastly overpriced destroyers, but I guess industrial development and local votes take precedence.
I am somewhat encouraged that Carney seems to be backing off a little from axing part of the F-35 order if LM sweetens the pot.
The most interesting thing to me is the CCG potentially taking on more of a national security role. It's at least an idea that hasn't been mentioned recently. It might take some of the pressure off the Navy if done right. But again that raises the question about why give new icebreakers to the Navy.
The navy has had a desire for something more than the AOPV for a while. I don't know why, again I have yet to hear what exactly they would do, but they've got it in their minds that it is a needed capability. Part of some broader plan we could only hope to understand? Maybe.
The AOPV are fine vessels, something that their often memed capabilities miss, being equivalent to Healy in terms of pure icebreakers capability. There is little that they can't do in the lower Arctic. There is little threats a Polar will be needed for in the high Arctic.
I am asking around though. This isn't a real project, it isn't on the docket. Ot is a want, so getting info can be very difficult for me.
The AOPVs are fantastic vessels for what they are - I commissioned Harry DeWolf and have a lot of experience on the platform. What is sad right now is them barely being used in the Arctic. It is a far miss from the original CONUSE for the vessels, the priorities are not where they should be. I broke it down in a post I made today.
I saw your post, and quite well loved it! I agree with you, I thunk they are wonderful vessels, that will only continue to grow into their own over time, and with some proper experimentation, which we should be very supportive in. It is a shame that they are being taken from their original intent, something I fear will continue as the current Kingston fleet divests and the Halifax continue to age. I worry about the toll it will take putting so much on the AOPV.
Not very impressed. Nothing new, nothing that adds significant capability. Just rehashing of previously announced items and enablers that are not actually for the CAF and are instead for the Coast Guard.
I don’t understand how both parties are so oblivious when it comes to defence proposals and spending.
Commit to a second fleet of fighters, trainer replacements, tank replacements, air defence, helicopters.
Like come on, heads out of the sand guys. They put more discussion towards having a debate on TVA or not.
Agreed. There isn't to much here, unless you were worried about potential cuts anywhere in the docket, there is little here of consequence. More of the same promises, more of the same reform. The new project we do get is one that, I think many agree, is in very clear danger of become a white elephant very quickly.
Of course it's not to much of a surprise, given how defence tends to be treated, despite being a fairly easy file to make people pleased with. I reserve to much judgement, as someone whom is supposed to be impartial, until the full platforms are released and I can judge them entirely.
In this case, there is little of impress here, and little that many didn't already know (at least if you follow me 😋)
What I would love to actually see is all of them being asked to provide their perspective on CONOPS of the various branches as they see it in their vision (mini white paper type thing), it would massively inform what procurement they should be focusing on.
Something of the like for all the branches that inform their strategic priorities.
RCAF: #1 NORAD, #2 NATO, #3 Pacific
If the Army’s main priority is Latvia/NATO then any procurement that enables that or advances capability in that theatre should be expedited based on the threats, I know this is happening to some degree. The same goes for items that are not priority, if our priority with the Army is not Counter Insurgency then we need to shift anything relating to that to a longer term outlook, maybe TAPV dies and we buy something else and donate those things to whoever we don’t really like so they can flip them over instead.
I’m of the opinion nothing that they announce that isn’t an expansion of existing procurement will be a disaster, and even then that could possibly be a disaster as well because everything they are talking about is just for points.
The CAF knows it’s gaps right now to do what it’s being asked to do. The fact that some people on the internet can identify it as well but none of the political parties can seemingly at the moment is sad.
I just want to see any of them announce AD, SHORAD, Armour Replacement, something that is a major enabler. Commit to our manufacturers of equipment bilaterally that we will purchase X off of them every year and in exchange they need to massively increase production. If the war in Ukraine ends tomorrow how many people will be out of jobs at Roshel and the like?
I would guess there will be some kind of SHORAD announcement in 2025 (at least the UOR portion), but since it's already in the works it's not appealing as a campaign promise.
If we buy more from local suppliers it must be conditional on getting a higher standard of quality than we've gotten historically. For that, politicians and the public need to really care about defence, not just creating jobs.
I go through this in my industry all the time and there needs to be less emphasis during procurement on country of origin for the manufacture. Heavily weigh the procurement to incentivize it and continue with the ITB type deals we have currently. We shouldn’t just buy something because it’s Canadian when it does not exist and the manufacturer has no experience building that product (Bombardier MPA for ex), nor should we develop something when we can liscence build something from Allies (CH-148 vs Merlin).
Do you have a source for the RCN wanting heavy icebreakers? You state that "this has been a Navy want for a while". I was heavily involved in RCN Arctic ops when I served (2013-2022) and this is the first I'm hearing of that being a desire.
I was going to address this lol. I have been gracious in the last few days to hear from many a people, and, while it seems some are adamant on this, I believe some of my sources are misconstructing or wrong on certain fronts involving this, and I do apologize. There seems to have be a failing on some of my more trusted sources on this file, whom have been adamant that this was something, but, recent people such as yourself Mr. Pougnet, whom would know better, have come out against this, so I chalk this up to bad information on my end. I do humbly apologize.
Thank you. I've been out of the CAF since 2022, so I don't see any official information anymore. So, there might be some truth to it. Afterall, every rumour usually has at least one grain of truth to it.
Im sure there is at least one person who has probably made it their whole identity in the last few years and now will painstakingly pitch it at every opportunity. I think we all know a person like that. 🤣
From my (limited, I’m not a defence insider) understanding: A lot of the Icebreaker talk is in response to high-level discussions between government and the CAF on what specific systems and platforms are needed to execute on the missions set out in Our North, Strong and Free.
Directly from the policy update:
“We must place particular focus on defending the Arctic and North and its approaches against new and accelerating threats through credible deterrence. We will secure our Arctic and North by increasing the presence, reach, mobility and responsiveness of the Canadian Armed Forces in the region, and along our coasts and maritime approaches. We will also develop greater striking power to deter adversaries and keep threats farther from our shores.”
So the CAF says, we’d need a new icebreaking ship to achieve ‘credible deterance against new threats’ in the arctic. However, I don’t belive it is something that either the Naval Requirements or Naval Capabilities teams are working on at all. They like the covette project and would rather do that, but it’ll ultimately be up Government on what gets funded.
Agree there is not much new here. Could all be hot air.
I am baffled that both major parties are now pushing for heavy icebreakers in the Navy. Why anyone in he Navy would want more icebreakers over and above what is already in the pipeline for the Coast Guard, as opposed to doing more Navy-like things like operating more submarines, is a mystery.
Also, I would rather Carney committed to all 12 submarines rather than all 15 vastly overpriced destroyers, but I guess industrial development and local votes take precedence.
I am somewhat encouraged that Carney seems to be backing off a little from axing part of the F-35 order if LM sweetens the pot.
The most interesting thing to me is the CCG potentially taking on more of a national security role. It's at least an idea that hasn't been mentioned recently. It might take some of the pressure off the Navy if done right. But again that raises the question about why give new icebreakers to the Navy.
The navy has had a desire for something more than the AOPV for a while. I don't know why, again I have yet to hear what exactly they would do, but they've got it in their minds that it is a needed capability. Part of some broader plan we could only hope to understand? Maybe.
The AOPV are fine vessels, something that their often memed capabilities miss, being equivalent to Healy in terms of pure icebreakers capability. There is little that they can't do in the lower Arctic. There is little threats a Polar will be needed for in the high Arctic.
I am asking around though. This isn't a real project, it isn't on the docket. Ot is a want, so getting info can be very difficult for me.
The AOPVs are fantastic vessels for what they are - I commissioned Harry DeWolf and have a lot of experience on the platform. What is sad right now is them barely being used in the Arctic. It is a far miss from the original CONUSE for the vessels, the priorities are not where they should be. I broke it down in a post I made today.
I saw your post, and quite well loved it! I agree with you, I thunk they are wonderful vessels, that will only continue to grow into their own over time, and with some proper experimentation, which we should be very supportive in. It is a shame that they are being taken from their original intent, something I fear will continue as the current Kingston fleet divests and the Halifax continue to age. I worry about the toll it will take putting so much on the AOPV.
Not very impressed. Nothing new, nothing that adds significant capability. Just rehashing of previously announced items and enablers that are not actually for the CAF and are instead for the Coast Guard.
I don’t understand how both parties are so oblivious when it comes to defence proposals and spending.
Commit to a second fleet of fighters, trainer replacements, tank replacements, air defence, helicopters.
Like come on, heads out of the sand guys. They put more discussion towards having a debate on TVA or not.
Agreed. There isn't to much here, unless you were worried about potential cuts anywhere in the docket, there is little here of consequence. More of the same promises, more of the same reform. The new project we do get is one that, I think many agree, is in very clear danger of become a white elephant very quickly.
Of course it's not to much of a surprise, given how defence tends to be treated, despite being a fairly easy file to make people pleased with. I reserve to much judgement, as someone whom is supposed to be impartial, until the full platforms are released and I can judge them entirely.
In this case, there is little of impress here, and little that many didn't already know (at least if you follow me 😋)
What I would love to actually see is all of them being asked to provide their perspective on CONOPS of the various branches as they see it in their vision (mini white paper type thing), it would massively inform what procurement they should be focusing on.
Something of the like for all the branches that inform their strategic priorities.
RCAF: #1 NORAD, #2 NATO, #3 Pacific
If the Army’s main priority is Latvia/NATO then any procurement that enables that or advances capability in that theatre should be expedited based on the threats, I know this is happening to some degree. The same goes for items that are not priority, if our priority with the Army is not Counter Insurgency then we need to shift anything relating to that to a longer term outlook, maybe TAPV dies and we buy something else and donate those things to whoever we don’t really like so they can flip them over instead.
I’m of the opinion nothing that they announce that isn’t an expansion of existing procurement will be a disaster, and even then that could possibly be a disaster as well because everything they are talking about is just for points.
The CAF knows it’s gaps right now to do what it’s being asked to do. The fact that some people on the internet can identify it as well but none of the political parties can seemingly at the moment is sad.
I just want to see any of them announce AD, SHORAD, Armour Replacement, something that is a major enabler. Commit to our manufacturers of equipment bilaterally that we will purchase X off of them every year and in exchange they need to massively increase production. If the war in Ukraine ends tomorrow how many people will be out of jobs at Roshel and the like?
I would guess there will be some kind of SHORAD announcement in 2025 (at least the UOR portion), but since it's already in the works it's not appealing as a campaign promise.
If we buy more from local suppliers it must be conditional on getting a higher standard of quality than we've gotten historically. For that, politicians and the public need to really care about defence, not just creating jobs.
I go through this in my industry all the time and there needs to be less emphasis during procurement on country of origin for the manufacture. Heavily weigh the procurement to incentivize it and continue with the ITB type deals we have currently. We shouldn’t just buy something because it’s Canadian when it does not exist and the manufacturer has no experience building that product (Bombardier MPA for ex), nor should we develop something when we can liscence build something from Allies (CH-148 vs Merlin).