C
CrazyCanuck
Guest
Since the navy is the senior service does that mean that an Ordinary Seaman outranks a Private? I've always been curious about what "senior service" really means.
Re: Navy ties up its fleet
- Thread starter schart28
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 68
- Points
- 680
:rofl:
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Boater said:
Neither of them outrank each other. Senior service is the term used as the navy has been around longer then the army and the air force. That is the simplified version. I am sure there is a historian or two who can give exact dates and info for you. IIRC (that is, if I haven't mind dumped all of my navy trivia yet), it was 4 May 1910 for the Navy.
C
CrazyCanuck
Guest
Thanks for the information
The Canadian army is definetly older than the navy so maybe "Senior Service" is a carry over from the RN
The Canadian army is definetly older than the navy so maybe "Senior Service" is a carry over from the RN
- Reaction score
- 68
- Points
- 680
From wikipedia.org
On March 29, 1909, George Foster introduced a resolution in the House of Commons calling for the establishment of a Canadian Naval Service. The resolution was not successful; however, on January 12, 1910, the government of Prime Minster Sir Wilfrid Laurier took Foster's resolution and introduced it as the Naval Service Bill. After third reading, the bill received royal assent on May 4, 1910, and became the Naval Service Act, administered by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries at the time. The official title of the navy was the Naval Service of Canada (also Canadian Naval Forces), and the first Director of the Naval Service of Canada was Rear-Admiral Charles Kingsmill (Royal Navy, retired), who was previously in charge of the Marine Service of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
The act called for:
a permanent force
a reserve (to be called up in emergency)
a volunteer reserve (to be called up in emergency)
the establishment of a naval college
The British cruiser Rainbow was the first ship commissioned into Canada's navy on August 4, 1910, at Portsmouth, England. She arrived at Esquimalt, British Columbia, on November 7, 1910, and carried out fishery patrols and training duties on Canada's west coast.
Another Royal Navy cruiser, HMS Niobe, became the second ship commissioned into the Canadian navy on September 6, 1910, at Devonport in England and arrived at Halifax Nova Scotia, on October 21, 1910—Trafalgar Day.
The Naval Service of Canada changed its name to Royal Canadian Navy on January 30, 1911, but it was not until August 29 that the use of "Royal" Canadian Navy was permitted by King George V.
===========================================================================================================
So 1911 would be the start date for the (Royal) Canadain Navy.
On March 29, 1909, George Foster introduced a resolution in the House of Commons calling for the establishment of a Canadian Naval Service. The resolution was not successful; however, on January 12, 1910, the government of Prime Minster Sir Wilfrid Laurier took Foster's resolution and introduced it as the Naval Service Bill. After third reading, the bill received royal assent on May 4, 1910, and became the Naval Service Act, administered by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries at the time. The official title of the navy was the Naval Service of Canada (also Canadian Naval Forces), and the first Director of the Naval Service of Canada was Rear-Admiral Charles Kingsmill (Royal Navy, retired), who was previously in charge of the Marine Service of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
The act called for:
a permanent force
a reserve (to be called up in emergency)
a volunteer reserve (to be called up in emergency)
the establishment of a naval college
The British cruiser Rainbow was the first ship commissioned into Canada's navy on August 4, 1910, at Portsmouth, England. She arrived at Esquimalt, British Columbia, on November 7, 1910, and carried out fishery patrols and training duties on Canada's west coast.
Another Royal Navy cruiser, HMS Niobe, became the second ship commissioned into the Canadian navy on September 6, 1910, at Devonport in England and arrived at Halifax Nova Scotia, on October 21, 1910—Trafalgar Day.
The Naval Service of Canada changed its name to Royal Canadian Navy on January 30, 1911, but it was not until August 29 that the use of "Royal" Canadian Navy was permitted by King George V.
===========================================================================================================
So 1911 would be the start date for the (Royal) Canadain Navy.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Ladies and Gentlemen we will not get in a p1ssing content about who is contributing more to the GWOT, who is the senior service, blah blah blah...back on topic
O'Connor promises funds for navy
Canadian Press
Article Link
HALIFAX — Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor is promising more funding to the navy so it can buy the fuel it needs to send one of its warship on a fisheries patrol off Canada's East Coast.
Mr. O'Connor said late Wednesday his department will come up with the money to send HMCS Halifax on the 35-day mission.
"I was given an estimate today that the navy would need $3 million to $5 million for fuel, essentially to meet these fishery patrols and a few other issues," he told the CBC.
"And I've told our officials, make sure they get the $3 million to $5 million."
The navy said earlier in the day that it had to postpone the patrol and cancel such things as overtime and travel as it scrambles to save money sapped by the army's costly mission in Afghanistan.
Marie-Claude Gagne, a spokeswoman for the navy on the East Coast, said the decision to suspend the patrol came as officials started a financial review before the end of the fiscal year in March.
Ms. Gagne said the patrol, which costs roughly $26,000 a day, could have pushed the navy over tight spending limits and leave it in the red.
"We're raising awareness of those activities we planned for, that unless provided additional funding, we will not be able to execute," she said.
More on link
Canadian Press
Article Link
HALIFAX — Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor is promising more funding to the navy so it can buy the fuel it needs to send one of its warship on a fisheries patrol off Canada's East Coast.
Mr. O'Connor said late Wednesday his department will come up with the money to send HMCS Halifax on the 35-day mission.
"I was given an estimate today that the navy would need $3 million to $5 million for fuel, essentially to meet these fishery patrols and a few other issues," he told the CBC.
"And I've told our officials, make sure they get the $3 million to $5 million."
The navy said earlier in the day that it had to postpone the patrol and cancel such things as overtime and travel as it scrambles to save money sapped by the army's costly mission in Afghanistan.
Marie-Claude Gagne, a spokeswoman for the navy on the East Coast, said the decision to suspend the patrol came as officials started a financial review before the end of the fiscal year in March.
Ms. Gagne said the patrol, which costs roughly $26,000 a day, could have pushed the navy over tight spending limits and leave it in the red.
"We're raising awareness of those activities we planned for, that unless provided additional funding, we will not be able to execute," she said.
More on link
C
CrazyCanuck
Guest
OK, I just read some of the comments to that article and I have no clue where some of those people are coming from. Lots of people talking about the conservatives throwing money everywhere and uncontrollable spending. Lots of them seem to think the Liberals could do a better job on keeping the military in good condition. There logic absolutely confuses me... but then again it is the Globe :
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Fleet sorties are different things alltogether...
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=b9c2f53e-fdf7-4c49-afca-27576da42822
Navy patrol postponed, then back on again
Analysts blame funding woes
KELLY PATRICK
National Post
Thursday, January 18, 2007
CREDIT: Paul Darrow, Reuters
Canadian navy ships docked at CFB Halifax yesterday.
The Minister of National Defence yesterday said Ottawa would come up with a few million dollars needed to restore an East Coast fisheries patrol that had been postponed due to funding concerns.
A dearth of money had forced the navy to postpone indefinitely a patrol that was to leave port this week and to reduce the number of frigates scheduled to take part in a joint Canada- U.S. exercise near Hawaii next month.
But Gordon O'Connor said yesterday the navy would be allotted extra funds to ensure the patrol proceeds.
"I was given an estimate today that the navy would need three to five million for fuel, essentially to meet these fishery patrols and a few other issues. And I've told our officials make sure they get the $3- to $5-million dollars," the Defence Minister told the CBC.
Experts said the temporary postponement underscores the budget pressures that result from Canada's mission in Afghanistan, but Mr. O'Connor told the CBC the issues are unrelated.
For staff at Maritime Forces Atlantic, new belt-tightening measures also extend to a freeze on overtime, professional development and temporary-duty travel, said Lieutenant Marie-Claude Gagne, a spokeswoman for the navy on the East Coast.
"All of this is being done to ensure we stay within our funding allocation," she explained.
The frigate HMCS Halifax and its crew of approximately 200 sailors was scheduled to set sail on Monday on a 35- day fisheries patrol through the waters of Newfoundland's Grand Banks.
Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, the chairman of the Senate's security and defence committee, called the patrol's postponement "outrageous."
"It has a negative impact on [sailors'] training ability," he said before Mr. O'Connor said it would be restored. "And it's extraordinary that we would announce to the whole world that we don't have the intention to have sovereignty patrols off the East Coast."
The Navy opted to postpone the patrol -- which would have cost at least $650,000 -- after a financial review of Maritime Forces Atlantic's operations was launched at the beginning of January.
Maritime Forces Pacific is undergoing a similar financial review, said a spokesman for the navy on the West Coast.
But Lieutenant-Commander Mark MacIntyre said the cost-cutting efforts seem not to have sliced as deeply in the Pacific as in the Atlantic.
"We have five ships at sea, which is about normal for this time of year," he said. "We haven't tied up any [vessels] because of this budget issue."
However, Maritime Forces Pacific has reduced to two from three the number of frigates it will send on an anti-submarine exercise with U.S. vessels around Hawaii in mid-February.
Although the navy spokespeople could not say whether their funds were being siphoned off specifically to fund Canada's commitment to Afghanistan, observers believe it is likely.
"I think that it's probably driven by Afghanistan because Afghanistan has certainly increased the tempo in the air force, as well as in the army," said retired Colonel Brian MacDonald, a senior defence analyst with the Conference of Defence Associations.
The cost of everything from danger pay for soldiers to maintenance for the fleets of both the air force and the army would have risen with the intensity of the Afghan mission.
"For example, the army's fleet of vehicles get damaged by the bad guys -- that increases your maintenance costs for the army," he said.
Lieut. Gagne said it is common for the navy to plan exercises and patrols whose total cost could exceed the money the navy is allotted at the start of the fiscal year. Additional funding usually rolls in throughout the year, she said.
For example, the Canadian navy's proposed budget for the 2005-2006 fiscal year was approximately $241-million; by year's end, however, the navy had received a total of about $315-million.
"I'm feeling that this is being overblown because it's a process that takes place every year and funding still continues to come in," she said.
"We still have 2? months to juggle funds. Actually, we might not even have to cancel anything."
© National Post 2007
Navy patrol postponed, then back on again
Analysts blame funding woes
KELLY PATRICK
National Post
Thursday, January 18, 2007
CREDIT: Paul Darrow, Reuters
Canadian navy ships docked at CFB Halifax yesterday.
The Minister of National Defence yesterday said Ottawa would come up with a few million dollars needed to restore an East Coast fisheries patrol that had been postponed due to funding concerns.
A dearth of money had forced the navy to postpone indefinitely a patrol that was to leave port this week and to reduce the number of frigates scheduled to take part in a joint Canada- U.S. exercise near Hawaii next month.
But Gordon O'Connor said yesterday the navy would be allotted extra funds to ensure the patrol proceeds.
"I was given an estimate today that the navy would need three to five million for fuel, essentially to meet these fishery patrols and a few other issues. And I've told our officials make sure they get the $3- to $5-million dollars," the Defence Minister told the CBC.
Experts said the temporary postponement underscores the budget pressures that result from Canada's mission in Afghanistan, but Mr. O'Connor told the CBC the issues are unrelated.
For staff at Maritime Forces Atlantic, new belt-tightening measures also extend to a freeze on overtime, professional development and temporary-duty travel, said Lieutenant Marie-Claude Gagne, a spokeswoman for the navy on the East Coast.
"All of this is being done to ensure we stay within our funding allocation," she explained.
The frigate HMCS Halifax and its crew of approximately 200 sailors was scheduled to set sail on Monday on a 35- day fisheries patrol through the waters of Newfoundland's Grand Banks.
Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, the chairman of the Senate's security and defence committee, called the patrol's postponement "outrageous."
"It has a negative impact on [sailors'] training ability," he said before Mr. O'Connor said it would be restored. "And it's extraordinary that we would announce to the whole world that we don't have the intention to have sovereignty patrols off the East Coast."
The Navy opted to postpone the patrol -- which would have cost at least $650,000 -- after a financial review of Maritime Forces Atlantic's operations was launched at the beginning of January.
Maritime Forces Pacific is undergoing a similar financial review, said a spokesman for the navy on the West Coast.
But Lieutenant-Commander Mark MacIntyre said the cost-cutting efforts seem not to have sliced as deeply in the Pacific as in the Atlantic.
"We have five ships at sea, which is about normal for this time of year," he said. "We haven't tied up any [vessels] because of this budget issue."
However, Maritime Forces Pacific has reduced to two from three the number of frigates it will send on an anti-submarine exercise with U.S. vessels around Hawaii in mid-February.
Although the navy spokespeople could not say whether their funds were being siphoned off specifically to fund Canada's commitment to Afghanistan, observers believe it is likely.
"I think that it's probably driven by Afghanistan because Afghanistan has certainly increased the tempo in the air force, as well as in the army," said retired Colonel Brian MacDonald, a senior defence analyst with the Conference of Defence Associations.
The cost of everything from danger pay for soldiers to maintenance for the fleets of both the air force and the army would have risen with the intensity of the Afghan mission.
"For example, the army's fleet of vehicles get damaged by the bad guys -- that increases your maintenance costs for the army," he said.
Lieut. Gagne said it is common for the navy to plan exercises and patrols whose total cost could exceed the money the navy is allotted at the start of the fiscal year. Additional funding usually rolls in throughout the year, she said.
For example, the Canadian navy's proposed budget for the 2005-2006 fiscal year was approximately $241-million; by year's end, however, the navy had received a total of about $315-million.
"I'm feeling that this is being overblown because it's a process that takes place every year and funding still continues to come in," she said.
"We still have 2? months to juggle funds. Actually, we might not even have to cancel anything."
© National Post 2007
- Reaction score
- 1,036
- Points
- 1,060
There are some salient points being made by both the media and their analysts. Canada would do very well to avoid the situation the Brits have got themselves into. The RN surface and subsurface fleet shrunk by more than 40% since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. They are close to losing their carriers with no viable, firm replacement in sight. It is ironic that where air cover is required, the RN may have to face the possibility of only deploying under the protection of the French navy [ :-[ ] or US carriers. The entire fixed wing fleet air arm was recently amalgamted into the airforce as a cost saving measure. The cause is not a lack of money within the UK MoD- it is the diversion to the army of funds previously allocated to the Navy, and the funding of projects for the RAF of questionable value. For example, the RAF is taking delivery of more Typhoon fighters than is reasonable required, and is involved in a JSF acquisition as well.
There is an absolute crisis looming around the corner for the Canadian Navy- the JSS program needs to be accelerated and they must speed up the Halifax modernization program and get on with replacements- right now and not 10 years from now. There is way too much emphasis on the BHS right now and not enough on the basics.
There is an absolute crisis looming around the corner for the Canadian Navy- the JSS program needs to be accelerated and they must speed up the Halifax modernization program and get on with replacements- right now and not 10 years from now. There is way too much emphasis on the BHS right now and not enough on the basics.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Which comes back to some of my previous posts that suggest we should be looking at a continuous program of shipbuilding & major refits. Cranking out a Dozen ships in 4 or 5 years and then shutting down / dismantling our shipyards afterwards for 10 yrs or more doesn't make any sense at all.......... IMHO
Making the fleet air arm part of the RAF doesn't have to be a bad thing. So long as the personnel are trained at working on wobbly platforms - it shouldn't make any difference at all...
Emphasis on land & air branches for the war on terror? yup... what is one to do? so many things to buy, so little time to do it in...
Making the fleet air arm part of the RAF doesn't have to be a bad thing. So long as the personnel are trained at working on wobbly platforms - it shouldn't make any difference at all...
Emphasis on land & air branches for the war on terror? yup... what is one to do? so many things to buy, so little time to do it in...
Is the coast guard patrolling on the atlantic right now? I know this has probably come up before but why not arm the coastguard to do fishery patrols and some constabular duties-they are out there anyway. Or is hiring a couple thousand rcmp officers to serve exclusively on coastguard ships a better idea?
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
The Coast Guard don't have the capabilities to do it. Their ships don't have the same speed, range and support.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,478
- Points
- 1,160
The CCG ships will be out and about doing there various jobs which will include icebreaking buoy maintenance and SAR, they will not be out as far as the navy ships normally.
Sad to think that the UK politicans are so short sighted as to kill their navy, seems the Falklands is already a fading memory. Mind you they are the same group that have banned any form of self-defense there , so it is consistent.
Sad to think that the UK politicans are so short sighted as to kill their navy, seems the Falklands is already a fading memory. Mind you they are the same group that have banned any form of self-defense there , so it is consistent.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,478
- Points
- 1,160
Mud Recce Man said:
Just a reminder of what we should not be doing.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
geo said:
Agreed. In my civilian job I'm involved in a vessel procurement for a government that last went through this exercise about 15 years ago. In addition to the issue of the actual shipbuilding capacity, you also have to consider all of the supporting staff (process and contract management, e.g.). Wait a few years between projects and the organization starts forgetting how they did it last time -- with a lot of consequent wheel-reinvention.
CF history from about 1968 on contains a few lessons on that subject...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Some of the comments on here remind me of the 90's when the Libs would commit the CF to UN missions and then leave DND to foot the bill even though it wasn't supposed to come out of the regular DND budget.
What I would be questioning, in this situation, is who was responsible for the budget forecast, why was funding allocation so out of whack with commitments and/or where did the money go? After all, unless there was a sudden addition to the deployment/training schedule, the bean counters at NDHQ would have known what was required last fiscal year.
What I would be questioning, in this situation, is who was responsible for the budget forecast, why was funding allocation so out of whack with commitments and/or where did the money go? After all, unless there was a sudden addition to the deployment/training schedule, the bean counters at NDHQ would have known what was required last fiscal year.
Similar threads
