CTV: Billions more for defence ...

[Edward Campbell]

Despite my protestations elsewhere in Army.ca about inefficient, indeed inept procurement policies and practices, riddled, most often, with political pork-barrelling, I think we all have to accept two facts:

1. Canadians, as a general rule, are ill-educated and, in matters of defence, industry and economics, nearly illiterate.  The consequence is that they care less about just how much of their money is wasted, sometimes stolen would not be too strong a word, just as long as they can believe that they are getting some immediate, local benefit.  It is vital to remember that Canadian have to overarching defining characteristics: greed and envy.  They covet everything that the better-offs (usually Americans or Torontonians) have but they reject the notion that they should have to work for it.

2. Canadians vote.

It is good news that DND is going to get some (maybe even quite a bit) of what is on its shopping list.  It is too much to expect that a minority government is not going to follow time honoured Canadian traditions and use major procurement, especially defence procurement, to buy votes with the voters' own money.

Ship building in the St Lawrence and aircraft manufacturing in Québec are, by now, considered to be divine rights in la belle province and amongst a large percentage of the civil servants in Ottawa.  Neither group can conceive of doing business any other way.  I am sure that we will get suitable, albeit fairly expensive, ice-capable warships and a JSS or big honkin' ship or whatever, from Industrie Davie at Levis – with whatever production Davie cannot manage being subcontracted to Atlantic or Pacific yards.  I recall, many years ago, that my old boss (NDHQ in the late '70s) Terry Liston (R22eR) had quite a (uniformed) cheering section when (in the mid/late '80s) he worked for Davie and was trying to convince Ottawa of a need for a SMART ship (Strategic Multi-role Auxilliary Resupply and Transport – I think).  I cannot remember much about it except that it would allow us to deploy a large (1,000+ soldiers - 200+/- vehicles) battle group anywhere in the world and insert it by a mix of landing craft (conventional and hovercraft) and ship-borne helicopters; just, I think, what General Hillier wants 20 years later.

I am equally sure that the air force will find some good uses for some Bombardier aircraft.  I also recall that some (quite a few) of my air force colleagues were, in the '80s and '90s, pressing the centre to design and buy Canadair and de Havilland aircraft for a variety of SAR, utility, transport, coastal patrol and EW tasks.  I'm sure that faction is still alive and well.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The next item is to get hold of whatever paper constitutes the "Canada First" strategy.  A defence policy which emphasizes Canada rather than expeditionary operations won't necessarily be army-heavy and should be expected to include money to create and maintain infrastructure and equipment suited to all the sorts of non-pointy things in the article.

 

[mjohnston39]

I am sure that we will get suitable, albeit fairly expensive, ice-capable warships and a JSS or big honkin' ship or whatever, from Industrie Davie at Levis

The team which included Davie was not selected as one of the 2 finalists for the JSS design.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/53823.0.html

But it sounds that there will be opportunity to spread ship building contracts around the country though...

 

[aesop081]

The team which included Davie was not selected as one of the 2 finalists for the JSS design.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/53823.0.html

But it sounds that there will be opportunity to spread ship building contracts around the country though...

....and as usual , such policy will result in insufficient work for any single shipyard to remain open.  Seems to me that some people in this forum still beleive that military contracts should be used as economic instruments and that political considerations outweigh the needs of the forces.  I guess that, even with everything going on today, the apple doesnt fall far from the tree.

 

[observor 69]

"Key elements of the government's "Canada First" defence strategy were unveiled throughout the week by Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor, Public Works Minister Michael Fortier, Industry Minister Maxime Bernier and Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day. "

http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=5&id=1229

Personally I think our history with White Papers was a bust.  When Martin started downsizing and starving the military the White Paper was superfluous. The past few years of Hillier speaking to clear operational needs seems to be working well. This spirit is being carried forward in the " Canada First " defence strategy which appears to be a document created by Can Force and DND people who know what they are talking about.
How refreshing!

 

[Donut]

As to the White Papers, I believe that the 1989(?) White paper, which, I believe, called for the maintenance of balanced, multi-purpose, combat capable forces was a decent piece of policy, iirc.

It was the regurgitation of that same policy, while ignoring it and simultaneously slashing the capabilities of the CF, brought to you courtesy of the Liberal Party of Canada in their 1994 Paper, which was the bust.  Iirc, the '94 WP was also the document that gave us "Total Force", too.  Again, didn't really work out that well initially.

I don't think that the "Canada First" policy necessarily refers to the "regional offsets" and other programs which suck resources and don't necessarily deliver any value to the CF, but rather that Canada's needs will be placed first; we're not building a force for the use of the UN, or other supra-national organization, but a force to be used to further Canada's position on the world stage, to meet Canadian specific needs first, which includes a robust expeditionary capacity (interoperable within ABCA, and, to a lesser extent, NATO).  It also includes an enhanced capacity to defend our sovereignty.

I think it is envisioned by the CPC as a means to achieve what they feel should be national objectives, such as strengthening our world position diplomatically, economically, and militarily.

DF

Edit, Typo (now why can't I see them against the green background?)

 

[peaches]

I don't know why we need to constantly "review" the capabilities of the military, white paper after us less white paper.  If you (politicians) don't know what a military is for by now, then.... come on.

The organization of the CF is not and should not be rocket science.  We have a small military, we need it to grow larger into the 70K range as has been stated by the current Govt.  We need a mid size, combat capable multi role military, simple!!

Navy:  

West & East coast, City Class patrol frigates (we already have), new Air Defence Destroyers to replace the current three, submarines (we already have), and the new supply/support ships (coming) able to support a deployed Battle Group and act as a floating supply depot, hospital & C2 platform, & that can support a Tac Hel flight.

We need a naval presents in the north, Fob Bay would be an excellent choice.  If Canada wants to keep the North Canadian, we need serious military presents their.  The Danes have more military assets in Greenland than we have across the whole north (remember they took an island from us a few years ago.

Army, again it is simple.  We need to be able to fight and win in all levels of warfare from low to high intensity.    FIGHT WITH THE BEST, AGAINST THE BEST!!.  Establish 4 brigades;

1st Armoured Brigade, armoured Recce battalion, a MBT battalion, 2 mech infantry battalions, and SP arty battalion (M109A6 or PH2000 with MLRS)

two medium brigades (based on the US Army SBCT model) with LAVIII instead of Styker, M777 & HIMARS arty.

Fourth & last a light brigade, centered on the 3 Light Infantry Battalion, LG 1 arty, co-located with the CSOR, and the Chinooks, and you have an Airmobile/Air Assault brigade.  It can move anywhere in Canada or abroad quickly by C17 & C130J

Along with the 4th AD Regt you have the makings of a Division here.  If you have a situation like the first gulf war, you can deploy the armoured brigade, attach it to a US Army ArDiv, of British ArDiv, or deploy the whole "Canadian Division" and fight a heavy war.  1 Armoured Brigade breaks the  "Republican Guard" wide open, the Medium brigade in LAVIII's mop up, Airmobile brigade guards flanks, leaps ahead to seize key objectives.  

Here's an idea, instead of supply trains following the tanks & IFVs, how about we reverse it and have the tanks/IFV fight there way to their suppiles.  Airmobile forces seize and airfield or objective ahead of the main force (behind enemy lines), hold the objective, Chinooks, C17's & C130Js come in with supplies that are waiting for our troops when they get their.

Would we not have more flexability with this idea.  Could we not conduct operations in desert, jungle, arctic, woodlands, Urban areas etc...

Airforce;

Again not to complicated, first and formost we need to defend Canada, that's job 1 for all of us.  For that (in the Air Force) we need an air defence system intergraded with the US, we have that.  Next we need fighters, we have them, we just need more.  For a fighter force we need a minimum of 5 fully equipped squadrons, that's 24 jets each, plus maint spares.  Basing, easy, 4 FW Cold Lake with 1 Sqn dedicated to NORAD, and the other dedicated to deployment, 3 FW Bagotville, same set up, with the fifth sqn at Cold Lake as the OTS (Operational Training Squadron) that acts as NORAD reserve in an emergency.  Wedgetail E737 AWACS (like the Aussies just purchased) would be nice, perhaps 4 or 5.

Air Transport, C17s, C130J's and the C130H's we will continue to use, great.  However, instead of Dash8 utility aircraft, why not spend that $$ on another C17, or a few more C130J's, or even use the $$ to modify or new C130's with tanker pods.  Dash8, civilian airplane, nice but we are not civilians.

Maritime Air, again great purchase of H92, but the Auroras will need replacing.  as well, if we are going to operate in the arctic more often, perhaps 21 Auroras is not enough.  The US Navy is currently working with Boeing on a P3 replacement aircraft the P8 Maritime patrol plane, based on the 737 (good info at Boeing.com).  Why not give the CP140's air to ground capability with JDAM bombs, stand off missiles, the US Navy has done it to theirs

Tactical Helicopter, again not hard.  Establish two Tac Hel Wings, one in the west, one in the east (one co-located with the Light Brigade).  Give each wing an fully equipped attack helo sqn (AH64 or AH1Z), and a fully equipped Transport Helo sqn, (Blackhawks & Chinooks) as well as a UAV sqn.  Tac Hel need to become a combat arm, big time.  I spent time in a Tac Hel sqn, Tac Hel is near & dear to me, they need combat attack & transport helicopters, not civie copters painted green.  Then create a fifth sqn, the Spec Ops Sqn for CSOR & JTF-2

Lastly, SAR, here's a really hard question, just thinking outside the box here so don't jump me, but should the Airforce (combat air arm) really be doing domestic SAR.  Is this really our job, or is it the job of the Canadian Coast Guard.  Should we not hand this responsibility over to them.  Retain the capability until the CCG is ready, aid in there training, assist them in future operations if they need us, but once they are ready, it's their show.  Not trying to dis anyone, these guys do an amazing job, just thinking outside the box.  Australia recently contracted it's domestic SAR operations out the a company call Australian Coast Watch.  They are responsible for SAR and maritime patrol.  Just an idea.

In terms of COMBAT capability the Airforce is in the worst position.  With the exception of the too few F18's we have, we have managed to completely "de-fang" our Airforce.

Where did I get this idea, by looking at our allies.  The US military has armoured divisions, mech divisions, light, air assault & airborne divisions.  The Brits have several armoured brigades, mech brigades, light & airmobile brigades, as do the Australians, even the Dutch, there is no excuse under the sun that we cannot equip our military properly.  We are a filthy rich country, an energy superpower, we have the $$, just no vision and no will it seems to spend some of it on the military. We are the second largest land mass on earth, we have to do better, this is just my thoughts.  Don't ponce on me please, I realize we do not have the troop numbers now, but perhaps this is what we should be building towards.  Just my thoughts.............

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Peaches
You missed some of our Navy assets and roles...the Naval Reserve.
12 Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs which we have) as mine hunters, route surveyors and platforms for side scan sonars.
Naval Control of shipping and Coastal Defence. We need to beef up our Naval Reserves as well.

I liked the rest of your post. ;D

 

[aesop081]

We dont have 21 Auroras either......we have 18

 

[peaches]

I know we have 18 CP140's, I included the CP140A's also.  I feel strongly that we have too few Maritime patrol assets, you should check out the boeing site, ref the P8.  I also know about the Naval reserve and their 12 vessels, sorry about forgetting them.  I read an interesting article recently about a proposal to give them to the Coast Guard as patrol cutters.  My whole point is that we should be a combat military, combat!!  Equip for it, train for it, be ready for it.  Does not mean we have to love it! 

I am not a warmonger, but wars happen, deal with it.  We need to deal with it, and I feel at least in the Airforce we are falling behind.  Just some of my thoughts, we often say there is no vision in the CF, here's mine, let me know what you think.  Small militaries can be effective, if they are lethal...

Here's a thought to throw out there ref SAR, why by SAR fixed wing, why not just outfit all SAR Sqns with Chinooks or more Cormorants, even in Yellowknife??  Thoughts.......

 

[aesop081]

I know we have 18 CP140's, I included the CP140A's also.  I feel strongly that we have too few Maritime patrol assets, you should check out the boeing site, ref the P8. 

I fly the CP-140 so i have followed the MMA project (a.k.a. P-8) closely thanks.  We no longer have 3 CP-140A Arcturus either.  One is now permanently a groud training aid for technician courses.  The 2 CP-140As that remain will be retired as we cannot afford to upgrade them they do not carry weapons and they do not have any ASW sensors other than the APS-507 radar and serve little other purpose than train pilots and FEs.  I agree with you , however, that we have too few MPAs in this country considering the size of our AORs.

 

[peaches]

I heard that they were standing down the 140A's, did not know it had already happened.  Yes, far too few MPA assets.  We talk to you folks here outta North bay when you do your patrols.  When I was on AWACS, worked with USN P3's they carried Maverick AGM's and SLAM missiles for ground attack, are we doing any of that in our upgrade???

 

[aesop081]

I heard that they were standing down the 140A's, did not know it had already happened.  Yes, far too few MPA assets.  We talk to you folks here outta North bay when you do your patrols.  When I was on AWACS, worked with USN P3's they carried Maverick AGM's and SLAM missiles for ground attack, are we doing any of that in our upgrade???

PM inbound

 

[peaches]

I was talking to a west coast Demon yesturday.

 

[Zoomie]

Here's a thought to throw out there ref SAR, why by SAR fixed wing, why not just outfit all SAR Sqns with Chinooks or more Cormorants, even in Yellowknife??  Thoughts.......

As soon as a RWSAR asset can attain 325KIAS, until then you need a fast search platform with the legs to go far distances and at altitudes in excess of 10,000' ASL.

 

[aesop081]

I was talking to a west coast Demon yesturday.

Thanks.......i will keep my comments on this via PM

 

[peaches]

Copy Zoomie, thanks.........

 

[Rescue Randy]

There are a few reasons why the Rotary Wing cannot replace the Fixed Wing in SAR - besides the issue of transit speed where something over 200 Knots is required, the fact is that helicopters cannot handle the same amount of ice accretion that fixed wing can.  They do not have the range of a fixed wing, and would require a Air to Air Refuelling if they were to transit for long distances - which means that you would require a Fixed Wing as well to do the refuelling.  Also, the reason that 10,000 ft was used in a previous post is not because the helicopters cannot fly higher than that, it is because they do not have supplementary oxygen for the crews and passengers, which is required above that altitude. A further factor is that helicopters are significantly more expensive than fixed wing aircraft, if you start comparing the cost of a Cormorant or Chinook (acquisition and maintenance) to the cost of a twin engine tactical transport, the "dollars" argument rapidly gets very significant.  This is especially true when chasing the relatively few defense dollars that Canada will have.  Billions do not go far when you start buying big ticket items.
Finally, the transit speed is significant, although I would take issue with the 325 Knots as being overstated, anything over the rated speed of the Buffalo (228 Knots) would suffice.  You should note that none of the current FWSAR aircraft fly at 325 Knots, and even the C-130J, which supposedly is rated at 360 Knots, is only flown at about 310 in practise due to the engine damage at the higher speed.  The 325 Knot speed is contained in a C-27J glossy brochure, but is not borne out in fact - that airframe will probably have a maximum viable speed of about 270 Knots as it uses a similar (although admittedly not identical) engine to the C-130J, and will probably lose about 50 Knots off its advertised top end speed as well.

 

[Babbling Brooks]

David asked for feedback, so here it is: check your sources, Dave.

The defence capabilities plan hasn't even been completed, let alone submitted to anyone with the ability to act upon it.  Whoever leaked that info to you got it wrong.

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/11/jumping-gun.html

 

[CrazyCanuck]

I don’t understand the continuing preoccupation with armed icebreakers, as I read it this plan seems to state that we will only be getting one, and a small one at that. Last time I checked the artic was rather large. The modern frigate costs about 1.2 billion dollars to build, whereas a German U212/214 costs about 400 million (US), so for the price of one frigate we would be able to buy 3 submarines. This would mean that we would have more resources at our disposal to defend and monitor the arctic, less crew which is good for a navy that decommissions ships for the lack of sailors (Huron) and would probably go over better with taxpayers as they see us getting 3 for 1. The only downside I see is an inability to land large groups of soldiers on Hans island and we would lose the ablility to throw flags out of helicopters.