• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Defence Policy in the 2006 General Election

MacKenzie1NSH

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
If the conservatives win, we get more money, but what else would change? Or doesnt it matter?
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
207
Points
730
Liberals talking out of their ass (again)

Stephen Harper's Mixed-Up Military Priorities
December 13, 2005



Stephen Harper's announcement of the Conservative defence plan today demonstrates his party's mixed-up military priorities.

First, Mr. Harper said the Conservatives would double funding to the Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART).

But his party has historically dismissed DART as unnecessary expense, even opposing sending DART to provide humanitarian aid after the recent earthquake in Pakistan. His critic, Helena Guergis dismissed DART as a "photo-op" that costs 10 times more than relief provided through non-government organizations.

Mr. Harper also announced his new plan would also include increasing heavy air lift capacity by buying larger aircraft.

Heavy airlift capacity has one purpose: the deployment of a quick response - for military or humanitarian reasons.


It is worth noting, Stephen Harper was committed to sending Canadian troops to Iraq in March of 2003 to remove Saddam Hussein's regime by force.

As he told the Wall Street Journal in March, 2003:

"Today, the world is at war. A coalition of countries under the leadership of the U.K. and the U.S. is leading a military intervention to disarm Saddam Hussein. Yet Prime Minister Jean Chretien has left Canada outside this multilateral coalition of nations. This is a serious mistake. [...] The Canadian Alliance -- the official opposition in parliament -- supports the American and British position."

Mr. Harper's should come clean and explain why he believes Canada needs this kind of airlift capacity: is it for military or humanitarian purposes?

In contrast, the Liberal government is focused on supporting Canadian troops. Budget 2005 provided $12.8 billion in new money for defence - the largest increase in the last 20 years.

This delivers on our commitment to provide funding for 8,000 new troops. It will also improve operational sustainability; and fund the acquisition of new equipment and capital projects, which will go a long way in helping ensure that the Canadian military has the ability to meet the demands of a new global environment.

The Budget 2005 commitment also includes $7 billion in new equipment for the Canadian Forces including new Joint Support Ships, new Search and Rescue Aircraft, the Mobile Gun System and new Maritime Helicopters.

Furthermore, Budget 2004 provided special recognition for Canadian Forces personnel and police serving on high-risk international missions by making their income while on mission income-tax-free, at a cost of $30 million annually.

These actions are proof of the Liberal government's commitment to making sure the Canadian Forces have the money and tools they need to do the job we ask of them.

Well duh you dipshits, we have complained about the lack of heavy lift for years and now your press clowns are against them?
 

Popurhedoff

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Here is a link to the news story:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/13/elxn-harper-military.html


Tories would bring back airborne regiment
Last Updated Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:23:22 EST
CBC News
A Conservative government would boost Canada's ability to project its values around the world with more military aircraft and a new airborne battalion, Leader Stephen Harper said on Tuesday.

Harper made the announcement at Trenton, Ont., where he said the new battalion and large strategic lift aircraft would be based. The Conservatives would also buy planes to replace the military's aging fleet of Hercules aircraft.



INTERACTIVE: Parties & Issues

 
Stephen Harper in Trenton, Ont., Tuesday. 
"Hitchhikers get to their destination, but they don't get to pick the route or the timing," he said, referring to recent missions in which the Canadian military had to rely on U.S. or Russian aircraft.
Military spending over the next five years would increase by more than $5 billion compared to the plan set out by the Liberal government, Harper said. By 2010, he said, a Conservative government would be spending $1.8 billion more per year than the Liberals.

"The Canadian Forces deserve better than the neglect that they have seen for the past 12 years," he said.

Asked about his plan to create a new airborne battalion of 650 troops stationed in Trenton, Harper said he doesn't believe there's a stigma attached to the idea of airborne troops.


ARCHIVES: The Somalia Affair

The Airborne Regiment, which was based in Petawawa, was disbanded in 1995 following a 1993 deployment as peacekeepers to Somalia, during which Canadian soldiers beat a Somali teenager to death.

Harper said, "The government of the day disbanded the Airborne Regiment to avoid getting to the bottom of a particular incident."

The Conservatives also plan to double the capacity of the Disaster Assistance Response Team, which has been deployed around the world to help in relief efforts following natural disasters such as last year's tsunami and the earthquake this fall in Pakistan.

Critics have complained in the past that DART, an ad hoc team of about 200 Canadian Forces staff who can ship out quickly to conduct emergency relief operations for up to 40 days, is expensive to deploy.

Some have suggested the money would be better spent given to non-governmental organizations.


INDEPTH: DART

Conservative MP Helena Guergis said in October that sending DART to Pakistan would "waste millions on a photo-op instead of disaster relief."

Harper said the Conservatives believe strengthening the military is important to maintain the country's sovereignty, which he said means protecting the borders and dealing with domestic disasters. He also said, "We need strong Canadian Forces to project Canadian values abroad."

Canada would not send troops to Iraq if he were prime minister, he said.

Tuesday's announcements were only the beginning of the Conservative military spending package, he said.


 

dorionhawk

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Signed on long ago but never posted.  I am presently the President of Carleton-Mississippi Mills Conservative Association, yes Gordon O'Connor's riding, I bring this up because some of you will if I do not.
...I am speaking only for myself and not Gordon O'Connor nor the Conservative Party or the Carleton-Mississippi Mills Conservative Association.

The real story : The Conservatives WANT to rebuild our forces now ,not because the election rug was pulled from our feet as what happened to the Liberals. For Canada to remain a sovereign nation and to have a say at the NATO or U.N. table we must be able to put something concrete on the table.

I will give you my biased opinion. Gordon is a great M.P.and will be a great Defense Minister, ask any of his constituents and they will tell you he is always available and very down to earth.
As Gordon has stated on t.v., the New Airborne regiment will have the capability to be our first line of defense in case of a terrorist attack but first of all be our front line troops to handle national emergencies across this large land mass  we call home.
Over the next few weeks Stephen Harper and Gordon O'Connor will reveal the remainder of the CPC 's
plan for our armed forces. Gordon and many others have put a lot of  time and effort in coming up with a strategy for our men and women in uniform. I truly believe that this plan will help us rebuild our military and give Canada a voice on the world's political stage once again. :cdn:
    J.P. Dorion
 

Infanteer

Army.ca Myth
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
550
Points
1,060
dorionhawk said:
I will give you my biased opinion. Gordon is a great M.P.and will be a great Defense Minister, ask any of his constituents and they will tell you he is always available and very down to earth.

Mr Dorion, thanks for posting.  Has the Conservative Party been paying attention to what the CF has been doing for the past year?  From what I've read, it sounds like you guys have missed the races or at least started out 10 paces behind - the Canadian Special Operations Regiment has already been stood up with important command and staffing positions being filled and a building plan instituted to get this "first line of defence" up off the ground in the next year.  It is a definite boost to Canada's Special Operations capability and fills much (if not all) of the capability set that the Conservative Party is promising.

Here is the discussion on the topic if you and Mr O'Connor wish to catch up with things:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35793.0.html

This isn't me bickering about politics; don't worry, the Liberals lost my vote with handguns.  But the CDS and his guys get the credit for this, and the previous Liberal government gets a thumbs up for letting General Hillier do his thing.  I hope to see two things to encourage my somewhat dim view of the Conservative Defence platform:

1)   The remainder of the plan for our armed forces that is somewhat more imaginative then two issues ("airborne" and "transport planes") that are already being addressed.

2)   A thumbs up by the Conservative Party to the CDS Rick Hillier who has given the CF a breath of fresh air.  You guys don't need to rewrite the playbook, you've got the right guy in play already.

Cheers,
Infanteer
 

Armymedic

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
0
Points
0
dorionhawk,
One of those things that the previous gov't got right it that we need more troops. The plan to recruit 5000 new troops is a good start, in replacing the 5000 we are about to lose over the next few yrs. We need more, 50,000 + isn't cutting it. We need our 3 army brigades returned to full strength, ships completely manned and in that we will also ensure tasks like training and recruiting will be filled as well.



 

Slim

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I hope the Conservatives will listen to this when I say

PLEASE LEAVE THE CDS WHERE HE IS! HE'S DOING THE JOB THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AND KNOWS WHAT HE'S ABOUT!!

Slim
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
167
Points
680
Hebridean said:
... with regard to strategic airlift, Harper delayed the tendering process   by causing the government to fall.
Actually, I don't believe the Liberals were persuing strategic airlift.   They did have a plan to replace our old Hercs and give us better tactical airlift (even if we do employ it strategically at times).

My first question to the Conservatives would be: would the Conservative plan to buy strategic airlift be complementary to replacing our tactical airlift, or would it be instead of replacing our tactical airlift.   (See the Army.ca thread that compares the two capabilities: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37145.0.html)

What is the position of the Conservative Party on the many transformation initiatives already started under the CDS?

Like many, I too would like to know if the Canadian Parachute Regiment would be in addition to the Canadian Special Operations Regiment, or in place of the CSOR.   (See the Army.ca thread on the CSOR: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35793.0.html)

FSTO said:
Stephen Harper's Mixed-Up Military Priorities
December 13, 2005
FSTO, can you provide a link or source for this IAW the conduct guidelines ?
 

Joe Blow

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Like many, I too would like to know if the Canadian Parachute Regiment would be in addition to the Canadian Special Operations Regiment, or in place of the CSOR.

I like what I heard tonight but was really curious about that point.  What does this promise mean for the army exactly?  I understand the CSOR will be a company from 3 RCR to begin with and will 'grow with the army' from there.  Would the new Airborne Regiment just be an amalgamation of the the airborne brigades?  If so, where is the advantage?  (Seriously ..I really wouldn't know.  Anyone?  Arguments for or against..?)  and what of the rest of the army ..the same but without jump battalions?

(As an aside...  The Tories really need a new communications manager.  Saying "Airborne Regiment" outloud was a stupid mistake.  Whatever good was contained in the announcement today it was overshadowed right away by that utterance.  I'm afraid that all that Joe Cdn heard was bla bla bla "Airborne Regiment" ...followed the immediate thought: wtf!?  I mean really what's the association there in everyones mind?  The CBC even showed the old picture of the that fellow torturing the Somali.  Really.  Just stupid.  Worse even than the "mini-carrier" utterance in the last election.)
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
167
Points
680
Joe,
We do not have airborne brigades or jump battalions.  We have three parachute companies (one in each of the light infantry battalions).  As far as the tactical/stratigic debate on how we should structure our parachute capability, I refer you to this:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22233/post-308759.html#msg308759
 

Joe Blow

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Oh yeah: "Parachute Companies"  OK, that's embarrassing.  Thanks for the clear up and the link.
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
167
Points
680
PViddy said:
Buying at least three new strategic lift aircraft;
...

"JTF 2 is to deal with terrorism," O'Connor said.

The airborne regiment is intended to protect Canadian sovereignty, he said.

"Right now, we have no capacity to move our troops through our vast, uncharted territories, especially in the north," he said.

"With an airborne capacity, with the new fleet of aircraft we are acquiring, we will be able to deploy troops anywhere within our landmass. We cannot do that at this time," O'Connor said.
Funny that they talk of new strategic lift aircraft, yet the roll described is of tactical airlift.
 

duotang

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,167
Points
890
More rifles and bayonets is nice, but what we really need is more combat service support. We do not posess the logistical capability to properly sustain the deployable force structure that we have today. Look at how brutal it was back in '92 / '93 when we had two battlegroups deployed, in Bosnia and Croatia/Serbia (about the time of the Medak Pocket battles). I've got family in army logistics, and I've heard some horror stories of how tough it was to support the troops back then, and apparenlty it's even wrose now. The multinational coalition in Afghanistan is a logistical nightmare because no nation wants to be responsible for the support infrastructure. If we can barely sustain things on our end with only a single task force deployed, then the concept of adding more infantry units becomes very notional as they would not be sustainable or deployable.

Don't get me wrong- I think a new para battallion would be excellent, or a strengthening of existing combat arms components, but any new defence allocation MUST be disproportionately budgeted towards combat service support and administration, or else any new initiatives in the combat arms will be useless. If we can barely sustain 10% of our combat capable force deployed, what use is adding more of them? We need to get abck to the point where we can sustain at least two if not three battallion sized battlegroups for several rotos, while still being able to keep one of them deployed and supported once the main conflict is over and the force goes to a lower profile. As it stands we can barely keep a single battallion out of our current nine deployed overseas.

Promising more rifles on the ground is sexier politically, but we need the ability to support them, and the politicians are losing track fo that.
 

Gobsmacked

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
MCG said:
Actually, I don't believe the Liberals were persuing strategic airlift.  They did have a plan to replace our old Hercs and give us better tactical airlift (even if we do employ it strategically at times).

My first question to the Conservatives would be: would the Conservative plan to buy strategic airlift be complementary to replacing our tactical airlift, or would it be instead of replacing our tactical airlift.  (See the Army.ca thread that compares the two capabilities: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37145.0.html)

FSTO, can you provide a link or source for this IAW the conduct guidelines ?

MCG,

Check the various news articles on 'Spotlight on Military News',
The CPC want strategic airlift On top of the recently announced Tactical Airlift.

'Rant On'

As previously noted, good ole, cross the floor and take a PWGSC Cabinet post Fiberal Scott Brison (yeah Belinda got away with it too - its just UnEthical  :tsktsk: ) noted in the 22nd Nov 05 Conference that "we will be posting the performance specifications for 30 days . . . that will probably be in another ten days or so."
Well, lets see - The 24 Nov 2005 'Backgrounder' noted 'Letter of Interest and Qualification - January 2006'In just 2 days they changed their tune from '10 or so' to '38 days or so'.
Yet, the election was called on Nov 28, THEREFORE, THE ELECTION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH DELAYING THE HERC ACQUISITION.

Meanwhile, pricing information provided by DGAEPM to a Parliamentary Inquiry to Directorate Material Group Management in late-October 2002 notes "Assuming that 19 CC-130 E-model aircraft [not including the 4 H-73s] would be replaced with 19 CC-130 J-model aircraft, the estimated replacement cost is approximately C$2.5B".
Or, estimate of C$2.1B CF acquisition cost for just 16 CC-130Js without Outsize cargo capability

As FSTO noted,
http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?id=11250
Stephen Harper's Mixed-Up Military Priorities
December 13, 2005
Stephen Harper's announcement of the Conservative defence plan today demonstrates his party's mixed-up military priorities.
Mr. Harper also announced his new plan would also include increasing heavy air lift capacity by buying larger aircraft.  Heavy airlift capacity has one purpose: the deployment of a quick response â “ for military or humanitarian reasons.  Mr. Harper's should come clean and explain why he believes Canada needs this kind of airlift capacity: is it for military or humanitarian purposes?


a.  OMG - I can't believe the Liberals actually released this as a news release:eek:

As previously said, Well DUH - Heavy Airlift capability is for BOTH Military
(ie. Vanguard elements or Electronically sensitive items such as ADATS - which are in short supply [34], or limited number Valuable Aviation assets like CH-47F Chinook or attack helicopters - you would not want any short supply/limited number assets sitting in the hold of a Commercial Ro-Ro cargo ship for 2-3 weeks when they could be used for trg or operational needs)
Or Humanitarian (DART, CH-47s, CH-146 Griffons - although not in Hot/High climates like AStan) purposes.

As previously noted, (Wouldn't want to actually be able to pull our weight in the world and provide rapid disaster relief - you know for the Quake that will Never Never Ever hit BC,  :dontpanic:  , the floods in Winnipeg or Ice Storms in Que/Ont that NEVER EVER require us to Beg a lift from our US allies.)

Plus, We should not keep funneling money - Hundreds of US$ Millions (nearly US$200M already - nearly the cost of a C-17) - to Foreign Russian/Ukranian air carriers & USAF.
And, I'm from partial Ukranian Heritage myself - but RENTING An-124-100 or IL-76 AT OUTRAGEOUS RATES is the Wrong Route to proceed!  Especially when they are ageing and supply is limited.
ie. Monopoly on Market.  When crisis hits - Everyone needs to use them all at the same time.


Meanwhile, the Fiberals preferred choice for Strategic Airlift is An-124-100 through the NATO SALIS MoU (of which i have an unedited copy).  Unfortunately, the implications of the Ruslan-SALIS Monopoly do not bode well for timely/adequate CF access.

A) Per sec 3.1.2 - Assured NATO/EU Access for up to 6x An-124-100 for 20 consecutive days, upon consent of all SB (steering board) members per sec 6.4, for minimum 800 hrs per year - no later than six days after SB notification.  Therefore, Canada would be responsible for 7.4925% of 800 hrs = 59.94 hrs yearly for Assured Access.

B) Per sec's 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 - Simultaneous activation of up to 2 National AR (Activation Rights) - at minimum 100 hrs per nation - (based on Annex B % rounded up to nearest whole #) for all participating nations would require simultaneous provision of 19x An-124-100s.
(Yet Volga-Dnepr & Antonov combined have total: 17x An-124-100, Plus An-225)
Although, as per sec 3.1.8, this is limited to a mere 6 cumulative National AR per calendar year.  Meanwhile, as per sec's 3.1.7 and 6.3, this may be supplanted by purchased Supplementary AR, although if all nations simultaneously require utilization of maximum 2 or 1 National/Supplementary AR (rounded up for lesser participating nations) then available Ruslan-SALIS airlift is inadequate.

C) Per sec's 3.1.4 and 6.4 - Canada's access to adequate strategic airlift would be dependent on the European-oriented priorities of the SALIS participants.
This access could be denied/restricted if one nation had national motives to deny access to another, such as seen by recent denial of French airspace to UK airlift to Iraq - thus translating into denial of sec 3.1.2 Assurred Access for major national deployments, which require Unanimous SB agreement, if a SALIS partner disagreed with such deployment.
Both the EAC (European Airlift Center), and the planned co-located SALCC (Strategic Air Lift Co-ordination Cell) are located at Air Base Endhoven and have a primarily NATO-Europe/EU focus.
Meanwhile, both Finland and Sweden have indicated their intentions to join SALIS which would further strain overtaxed An-124-100 resources.

D) Also per sec 3.1.9 - The 72hr availability stipulation would be Insufficient to meet DND's FSA SOR 48hr availability window in respect to national deployments in response to a natural disaster (such as a major BC earthquake or another Winnipeg Flood) or a northern Canada MAJAID (MAjor AIr Disater)!

E) In addition to the yearly Assured Access financial commitment required by Canada (59.94 hrs) - per sec 3.1.2, Canada would also be responsible for 150 YFH per sec's 3.2.1 and 7.2 - defined at Annex C.
Plus, yearly admin Fee as per sec's 5.2 and 7.1 - whether the capability is used or Not.  :mad:

F) Per sec 12, Future Withdrawl from SALIS once Contract signed upon RfP acceptance - should an integral national strategic airlift capability be acquired down the road - Canada would remain financially liable for 1yr after giving notice.  :(

G)  Per 3.1.2 and Annex C, the YFH cost to NATO/EU would be based on 800 hrs + 1,859 hrs = 2,659 hrs.
As per early-2005 article, Elmar Rauch - a German attorney representing Ruslan-SALIS estimated the contract would be worth some Euro70M per year.  Therefore, some Euro26,326 per YFH.


Additionally, as STEPHEN THORNE noted March 14, 2005
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/03/14/pf-960716.html
Military could face skyrocketing lease prices
NATO's Strategic Airlift Interim Solution (SALIS) project is finding that its goal of obtaining assured access to one of the world's largest transport planes, the Russian-built Antonov, may be prohibitively expensive.
Two companies, Volga-Dnepr of Russia and Antonov Design Bureau of Ukraine, control three-quarters of the world's 23 Antonovs [Russia's Polet has the other 6 - tied to Russian AF/Gov't]. They have formed a western-based agent, Ruslan-SALIS, to bid on the NATO contract.
"That in effect created a monopoly situation," says a Canadian Forces brief obtained by CP. "The price they demanded for assured access was extremely high.  It is equivalent to paying out all of the annual potential revenue of each of the six (required) aircraft, which amounts to a full-time lease."
On top of the retainer, the bidders want Canada and other NATO countries using the planes to pay the full market rate for each hour flown.
"In essence, we pay twice for the aircraft - once when the full potential revenue is paid out for assured access, and once more for each hour flown," says the brief.
"Under these terms, each flying hour could cost up to four times what a fair-priced market would ask."
[Recall that the 'fair market' charged DND US$880K per DART flight in early-2005, therefore 4x = ~Cdn$4.14M (US$3.52M) per flight:p]
The operators also submitted a list of circumstances that would allow them to default on the assured access terms of the contract without having to pay the heavy penalties that nations want included as insurance.
"The aircraft is approaching the end of its designed useful life of 24,000 flying hours," the brief says.
:brickwall:


In DND's own words (i'm not going to list the specific ATI docs I've taken these out of because you folks can pay for your own ATI searches):
Considering Canada is: "The Second Largest Country in the World (and) Isolated from Most of the World by 3 Oceans, (while) Timely Implementation of Canada's Foreign Policy Requires Assured Access to Means of Global Deployment.
Canada requires Strategic deployability: To be able to respond to domestic needs [Natural disasters, timely deployment of JTF-2 outside Central Canada
(due to) National security incidents, deployment of submarine rescue equipment from East Coast to the West Coast, deployment of major equipment to the Arctic in response to a major air disaster], To be able to respond to foreign policy driven requirements [UN and NATO missions - ie. Afghanistan, Deployment of the DART].

(Additionally,) Paris-Moscow by AIR = 2,495 Km (vs) Toronto-Vancouver by AIR = 3,366 Km. (Thats roughly equivalent to 3,000nm transatlantic distances.  And reiterating the obvious, Charter or) Lease An-124 from Antonov - Not a long-term solution to Canada's requirements, (while) Operating lease of C-17s Expensive {US$36M/yr per A/C} - Not a long-term solution to Canada's requirements.  Many NATO nations like Canada are currently experiencing a deficiency in strategic airlift."

Yet, the Fiberals don't think we should own strategic airlift - they seem 'hunky dory' with the above limitations - that have been repeatedly pointed out to them.
With the Europeans, on the other hand, common sense seems to have finally prevailed - after years of prevarication, as a majority of Western-NATO/WEU members (especially any G-7 nations) have committed to a total of 180 A400M from approx 2010 onwards.  Even South Africa (eight), Malaysia (3) and Chile (3-4) seem to have realized the importance of acquiring at least a basic (APC capable) Outsize strategic airlift capability - and most of these nations are closer to where we deploy overseas than we are!

Plus, as WEU notes "the chartering of foreign aircraft will ALWAYS BE NECESSARY . . . to have the capacity now lacking until the arrival of the A400M and the few heavy-lift aircraft that will remain necessary beyond the year 2010. (Meanwhile,) only Great Britain has four C-17A Globemasters, while for sending forces under the Helsinki headline goal, twenty would be needed."


b.  Well,  actually - yes I can believe the Fiberals would release that News Release load of bull
- it smacks of the CRASS ANTI-MILITARY BIAS OF THE LAST ELECTION!
[ie. say 'whatever it takes' to get re-elected.]
When the Conservatives said they were thinking along the lines of:
Helicopter Assault Ships or 'Hybrid Carriers' (what was the CPC thinking?) -
REMEMBER THE OUTRAGEOUS FIBERAL CARRIER ADS!  :tsktsk:
They made it sound like the Conservatives wanted to procure Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carriers for 'American Style' Offensive operations.  :rofl:  [Anyone notice an 'Anti-Yank' theme here?]  ::)
(Funny how the Helicopter/Assault Carrier idea is now leaking out of DND - Obviously DND thought is was a Good idea!)

Hopefully the CPC will listen to my idea of:
Two US-type LMSR (Large, Medium Speed, Roll-on/Roll-off) ships would be much more Capable
[cargo capacity of 300,000 Sq ft - equiv to 400x C-17 payloads - enough to store and Securely carry enough equipment for a TSSU - incl. MBTs - with a range of some 12,000 nm at 24 knots.
Remember the 'GTS Katie' Incident - held hostage 10% of Army vehicles incl. Leopard 1 tanks],
and - very Important to our Personnel Starved Navy - would not require the Extensive crews that a LPH/LPD would, not to mention that such a capability is academic as Canadian Navy No Longer has any Naval Gunfire Support capability to allow opposed landings, we would still need a friendly port.
And could Not be Spun by the Fiberals into acquisition of a Carrier.  ;)

'Rant Off'

:cdn:
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
470
Points
880
"Mr. Harper's [sic] should come clean and explain why he believes Canada needs this kind of airlift capacity: is it for military or humanitarian purposes?"

It must have been "Bring your kid to work and let him/her do your job for a day" today at liberal.ca.

"General purpose combat capability" has been a mantra for years.  Almost any reasonably well-informed person covering the defence beat would know it.  The false dilemma would be embarrassing, assuming the author to be knowledgeable.  A correct phrasing would be "for military and humanitarian purposes".  Everyone who has spent practically five minutes in the CF knows that eventually equipment might be used for purposes other than originally envisioned.  Tank trainers, anyone?
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
470
Points
880
Regarding "airborne battalions": I suggest the CPC get someone knowledgeable about light infantry and how they are delivered to the battle to write up the talking points.  What are needed - and what I believe are already in the works and should be accounted for in any "new" proposals - are proficient and prepared light infantry with commensurately equipped and mobile combat support and service support elements to ensure they don't get stuck out on a limb.  Whether a particular deployment is airborne, airmobile, heliborne, civvy air, ro-ro, over the beach, or any other exotic category shouldn't matter and shouldn't be a feature of the unit name, role, or colour of hats and jackets.

It would also help to identify when and whose ideas are being repackaged.  If the Liberals - with a glorious history of fulfilling campaign promises pertinent to DND/CF at great benefit to taxpayers - are repackaging others' ideas, then identify the root instead of looking like yet another layer of giftwrap.
 

MacKenzie1NSH

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Brad Sallows said:
It would also help to identify when and whose ideas are being repackaged.   If the Liberals - with a glorious history of fulfilling campaign promises pertinent to DND/CF at great benefit to taxpayers - are repackaging others' ideas, then identify the root instead of looking like yet another layer of giftwrap.

Thats pretty ironic, cause thats what one of vetrans said at a Highlander Ass. Meeting the other night, and hoe they have been doing it for years
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
207
Points
730
MCG said:
Actually, I don't believe the Liberals were persuing strategic airlift.  They did have a plan to replace our old Hercs and give us better tactical airlift (even if we do employ it strategically at times).

My first question to the Conservatives would be: would the Conservative plan to buy strategic airlift be complementary to replacing our tactical airlift, or would it be instead of replacing our tactical airlift.  (See the Army.ca thread that compares the two capabilities: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37145.0.html)

What is the position of the Conservative Party on the many transformation initiatives already started under the CDS?

Like many, I too would like to know if the Canadian Parachute Regiment would be in addition to the Canadian Special Operations Regiment, or in place of the CSOR.  (See the Army.ca thread on the CSOR: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35793.0.html)
FSTO, can you provide a link or source for this IAW the conduct guidelines ?


Here you go.

http://liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?id=11250
 

MacKenzie1NSH

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Does anyone know where the conservitives plan on getting the extra funding from to support the military as they propose to do? Is it from taxes, or public programs?
 
Top