The Defence Budget [superthread]

[Humphrey Bogart]

The entire Griffon fleet should be replaced with a decent utility helicopter. I would not, not, not replace any with Chinooks. They are big baskets with a lot of eggs in each. We lost one in Afghanistan, and came within seconds of losing everybody aboard - saved by a skilled crew and a bunch of luck. The Americans lost a few. An Infantry section-carrying machine is ideal - UH-60 and UH-1Y conform to that concept. Four small targets with a section of troops and elements of a platoon HQ on each is better than one large target with a platoon on it.

AHs are essential. Twenty-four would be insufficient to sustain ops in even low-level conflict. With just under seventy Griffons in service, and eight of them overseas plus a small non-flying reserve correctly configured in Canada, we were down to nine serviceable across Canada on a few days at the end of Athena and for a year or so afterwards, with twenty being a good day. Take a third out of any fleet for major inspections and unserviceabilities, then a percentage for OTU requirements (conversion to type), plus pre-deployment work-ups and regular training support to ground troops, and there are not a lot left to deploy.

From an Army standpoint the biggest problem with the Griffon is its lack of lift.  UH-60 or UH-1Y would be far more suitable. 

I disagree that 24 AH's would be too few, it's probably just right for our size.  Out of the top 20 military spenders in the world we are the only one without Attack Helicopters.  Comparing us to other NATO/SETO countries of similar sized Armed Forces:

Dutch:  28 Apaches
Poland:  29 Hinds
Spain:  9 Tigers
Turkey:  21 Cobras, 20 Mangusta
Italy:  50 Mangusta
Germany:  47 Tigers
UK:  50 Apaches
France:  55 Tigers
Australia:  22 Tigers

Heck even Japan, with their pacifist ways, has 88 Cobras and 13 Apaches.

Our Army Aviation is woefully inadequate for the modern battlefield and we are about 30 years behind everyone else. 

Edit:  I understand your point about serviceability; however, we should base the entire AH fleet in a Petawawa, re-roll 2CMBG in to an Air-Mobile Brigade.  Lets not kid ourselves that 2 CMBG is a Mech Brigade, it doesn't even have tanks, air defence, heavy engineering equipment, SP Artillery, or adequate logistics vehicles for that matter. 

 

[MilEME09]

it should be noted the number 24 was picked as it would mean one AH for every chinook, idea the senate having is that one to escort every chinook

 

[Loachman]

I disagree that 24 AH's would be too few, it's probably just right for our size.

Of those twenty-four, how many would you expect to deploy for a sustained operation?

Edit:  I understand your point about serviceability; however, we should base the entire AH fleet in a Petawawa, re-roll 2CMBG in to an Air-Mobile Brigade.

I agree with that concept in general. It would not affect serviceability, however, or any other factor. And we should think in terms of tactical units rather than rectally-extracted numbers.

Coincidentally,  but I doubt that the Senate scoured any doctrinal publications, a standard US Army Attack Reconnaissance Battalion has three companies of eight AH64, which equates to a Canadian Squadron of three Flights of eight. I would accept that model, as it's been proven and would allow one flight preparing, one deployed, and one recovering. Additional machines would still be required for an Operational Training Flight (aircrew and groundcrew conversions-to-type) and some to account for the number in major inspections. That twenty-four machine Squadron is, after all, a tactical unit, and taking out a quarter or so continually has an effect, especially when it comes to deployments. Presuming that we were to deploy a Flight of eight, the six (presuming 25%) out of the picture for a couple of months each for major inspections drops the number left in Canada to ten, of which a couple more would be down for regular unserviceabilities. And once losses due to combat and accident start to happen...

I'd prefer to see two such Squadrons for sustainability, or at least a Squadron-and-a-half, with one affiliated with your proposed 2 CABG, as we would be hard-pressed to keep one Flight fully manned and equipped for an extended period. We had 11% of our Griffon fleet in Kandahar for a little over two years (I'm not counting the non-flying "ready reserve" as stripping as much weight off as possible and adding some essential gear would not be required) and were hard-pressed to sustain that. Trying to keep 33% of an AH fleet deployed is a bit more of a challenge.

We did, yes, add six Chinooks into theatre with no extra bodies, so that skews the numbers a bit. The total deployed, both types, still only equated to 19% of our total fleet, both types, and the smaller fleet was not acquired for long-term use and we did not run an OTF.

On the plus side, AHs are not likely to be tasked with domestic VIP trips and flood relief...

it should be noted the number 24 was picked as it would mean one AH for every chinook, idea the senate having is that one to escort every chinook

Escorts work in sections of two, for mutual support. We flew the ring routes (administrative aerial bus routes) with one Chinook and two Griffon escorts. For larger, tactical, missions this ratio would change, but properly capable utility helicopters are better than a Chinook-exclusive/Chinook-heavy fleet for insertions and extractions. Chinook become the helicopter of choice in Afghanistan because heat and elevation sucked performance (helicopters are more efficient at sea level in low temperatures) and it had lift capacity to spare, and it was a relatively permissive environment.

We should not base our assumptions and resultant purchases on the last war, but war in general. The next one could be a more conventional slugfest in a cooler, lower, rainier place, in which case we would find ourselves oversubscribed with Chinook and undersubscribed with UHs and AHs, and Griffon would be a lot less useful as an escort with door guns only.

How much of that fancy essential-for-the-time route clearance equipment did we retain?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Of those twenty-four, how many would you expect to deploy for a sustained operation?

I would expect us to deploy be able to deploy four helicopters, potentially up to six if it's really required. 

I agree with that concept in general. It would not affect serviceability, however, or any other factor. And we should think in terms of tactical units rather than rectally-extracted numbers.

Coincidentally,  but I doubt that the Senate scoured any doctrinal publications, a standard US Army Attack Reconnaissance Battalion has three companies of eight AH64, which equates to a Canadian Squadron of three Flights of eight. I would accept that model, as it's been proven and would allow one flight preparing, one deployed, and one recovering. Additional machines would still be required for an Operational Training Flight (aircrew and groundcrew conversions-to-type) and some to account for the number in major inspections. That twenty-four machine Squadron is, after all, a tactical unit, and taking out a quarter or so continually has an effect, especially when it comes to deployments. Presuming that we were to deploy a Flight of eight, the six (presuming 25%) out of the picture for a couple of months each for major inspections drops the number left in Canada to ten, of which a couple more would be down for regular unserviceabilities. And once losses due to combat and accident start to happen...

I understand that US Army Doctrine States the following; however, I think we get caught up too much in US Army Doctrine and for the size of our military force, its wholly inappropriate.  We still wouldn't have the mass required to conduct actual air assaults.  We could also mitigate having less attack helicopters by also deploying the UH-1Ys which are superior to the Griffon in speed, lift and weapons systems.

I'd prefer to see two such Squadrons for sustainability, or at least a Squadron-and-a-half, with one affiliated with your proposed 2 CABG, as we would be hard-pressed to keep one Flight fully manned and equipped for an extended period. We had 11% of our Griffon fleet in Kandahar for a little over two years (I'm not counting the non-flying "ready reserve" as stripping as much weight off as possible and adding some essential gear would not be required) and were hard-pressed to sustain that. Trying to keep 33% of an AH fleet deployed is a bit more of a challenge.

We did, yes, add six Chinooks into theatre with no extra bodies, so that skews the numbers a bit. The total deployed, both types, still only equated to 19% of our total fleet, both types, and the smaller fleet was not acquired for long-term use and we did not run an OTF.

On the plus side, AHs are not likely to be tasked with domestic VIP trips and flood relief...

Escorts work in sections of two, for mutual support. We flew the ring routes (administrative aerial bus routes) with one Chinook and two Griffon escorts. For larger, tactical, missions this ratio would change, but properly capable utility helicopters are better than a Chinook-exclusive/Chinook-heavy fleet for insertions and extractions. Chinook become the helicopter of choice in Afghanistan because heat and elevation sucked performance (helicopters are more efficient at sea level in low temperatures) and it had lift capacity to spare, and it was a relatively permissive environment.

We should not base our assumptions and resultant purchases on the last war, but war in general. The next one could be a more conventional slugfest in a cooler, lower, rainier place, in which case we would find ourselves oversubscribed with Chinook and undersubscribed with UHs and AHs, and Griffon would be a lot less useful as an escort with door guns only.

How much of that fancy essential-for-the-time route clearance equipment did we retain?

My personal opinion is acquiring Attack Helicopters solely for the purpose of escorting Chinooks around would be a waste of the resource.  Escort is one of the roles they can perform; however, supporting troops in contact and armed reconnaissance is more important IMO.

In spite of all the Sabre Rattling in Europe and North Korea, I don't see us engaging in a conventional war any time soon.  Small Wars are a reality though and we will be fighting Islamic Militants in North Africa and the Middle East for the foreseeable future.  We need appropriate tools to be able to do so. 

 

[Journeyman]

...... we will be fighting Islamic Militants in North Africa and the Middle East for the foreseeable future.

I guess you missed the link to how we're going to be UN peacekeepers dammit, ... no matter how much the bribes cost Canadian taxpayers.   

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I guess you missed the link to how we're going to be UN peacekeepers dammit, ... no matter how much the bribes cost Canadian taxpayers.   

I pay no attention to the whole "peacekeeping" thing.  It's a sideshow, always has been and always will be.  Now if we said we were going in to the Sahel to CONTAIN or INTERDICT Ansar al-Sharia expansion further in to the African Continent, that would be a mission that made sense to me. 

 

[Journeyman]

.... a mission that made sense to me.

Ahh... that pesky 'sensibility' snag. 

 

[Kirkhill]

Just for reference - the senate called for 36 Chinooks and one AH for each Chinook - apparently in the senate that equates to 24 AH.

Loachman, how would you feel about 36 AH-1Zs and upping the CH-146s to the UH-1Y configuration?  Don't adjust the number of flying squadrons or pilots.  Just adjust the inventory.

 

[TCM621]

From the Senate.
https://sencanada.ca/en/newsroom/cancel-super-hornets-jet-order-senate-defence-committee-urges/

Final report

https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/421/SECD/Reports/SECDDPRReport_FINAL_e.pdf


reading it my self now, especially the section on the reserves




Some highlights:

Airforce- -start an open competition to replace the CF-18 by june 18th 2018, the target fleet should be three squadrons of atleast 120 aircraft
-replace 55 of the giffons with non-civilian medium to heavy lift helicopters, and purchase 24 attack helicopters to protect our chinooks in theatre

Navy: -Four AoR's needed
-Article patrol vessels are not up to par, will need a coast guard ice breaker escort, slower then a BC ferry "That the Government of Canada conduct a fully independent and impartial review of the capabilities of the Arctic Off shore Patrol Ships (AOPS) "
- Replace our current sub fleet with 12 modern subs

A huge problem is that more than half of that article is focused on diversity rather than our actually problems. How the hell does diversity increase our operational effectiveness? I straight up don't care who I work with and most of the people I know don't either. I can tell you the women I work with would be much happier having parts and tools to do a job rather than more women on the crew. I can tell you that having a professional, well trained military with state of the art equipment has more effect on other nations than having and appropriately diverse crew. Are we going to DAG by race and gender now? Do transsexuals count towards the gender quota or LGBTQ quota? Can you have use an ethnic transgendered lesbian to tick off three boxes or just one?

Seriously, give us give the kit we need, proper benefits and pay, fast recruiting and make the military and employer of choice. No amount of targeted recruiting will entice people to join a the CAF when our inadequacies (real and imagined) are broadcast to the world on a regular basis.

 

[Kirkhill]

TCM

If that is what it took to bring the other side of the house on board with the rest of the report then it was well worth the effort.  And besides, it doesn't hurt.  Both increased diversity, and paying attention to an issue that is top of the pile on the CDS's desk are not undesirable.

 

[Rifleman62]

In the old days the descriptor was the men of the e.g. Army. It then became the men and women. Now its heading to the men, women and transgender of the Army. Wait for it. Someone will come along and bitch that the descriptor is not inclusive. We must be PC.

 

[Altair]

In the old days the descriptor was the men of the e.g. Army. It then became the men and women. Now its heading to the men, women and transgender of the Army. Wait for it. Someone will come along and ***** that the descriptor is not inclusive. We must be PC.

Biological organisms. That should cover it.

 

[The Bread Guy]

A huge problem is that more than half of that article is focused on diversity rather than our actually problems ...

While about 200 of the 580 words of the news release deal with diversity (apart from the headline), have you looked at the report?  Two pages out of 105 deal with "REFLECTING CANADA’S DIVERSITY".  Shows you what the report writers find critical vs. the news release writers (although there's overlap between those two groups).

... Seriously, give us give the kit we need, proper benefits and pay, fast recruiting and make the military and employer of choice ...

Most of the rest of the report deals exactly with that.

In the old days the descriptor was the men of the e.g. Army. It then became the men and women. Now its heading to the men, women and transgender of the Army. Wait for it. Someone will come along and bitch that the descriptor is not inclusive.

Since you mention the Army, how about "troops"?

 

[Journeyman]

While about 200 of the 580 words of the news release deal with diversity (apart from the headline), have you looked at the report?  Two pages out of 105 deal with "REFLECTING CANADA’S DIVERSITY".

      :nod:

Sometimes there are benefits to actually reading  complete articles/reports....

 

[The Bread Guy]

      :nod:

Sometimes there are benefits to actually reading  complete articles/reports....

Or at least skimming them - even if JUST to compare to what the politicos & MSM say/find important.

 

[Good2Golf]

I guess you missed the link to how we're going to be UN peacekeepers dammit, ... no matter how much the bribes cost Canadian taxpayers.   

Pshawwww....you're limiting your creativity!

 

[TCM621]

While about 200 of the 580 words of the news release deal with diversity (apart from the headline), have you looked at the report?  Two pages out of 105 deal with "REFLECTING CANADA’S DIVERSITY".  Shows you what the report writers find critical vs. the news release writers (although there's overlap between those two groups).Most of the rest of the report deals exactly with that.

I didn't count the words, just guessed based on how much of the page it took up. I have yet to read the report the fact that a large portion of the article focused on 2 pages of the report is telling.

 

[Loachman]

Loachman, how would you feel about 36 AH-1Zs and upping the CH-146s to the UH-1Y configuration?  Don't adjust the number of flying squadrons or pilots.  Just adjust the inventory.

I think that we should have an "open and transparent competition", followed by a court challenge, before settling on airframes.

But those machines would be fine with me, or AH-64 and UH-60.

Our Griffons should be swapped one-for-one, and the AHs would have to form a resurrected Squadron with additional PYs. If 2 CMBG is to become 2CABG, then there should be a utility Squadron in Petawawa (or close) as well, for a total of two additional Squadrons including a few more new UHs. Dormant former 10 TAG Squadrons include 411, 422, and 447. I'd prefer to hand 400 Squadron's current maintenance function to civ contractors and return it to flying status, but leave it in Borden and attempt to increase its Reserve component again. 411 Squadron was 400 Squadron's sister Squadron in Downsview.

 

[Underway]

I didn't count the words, just guessed based on how much of the page it took up. I have yet to read the report the fact that a large portion of the article focused on 2 pages of the report is telling.

Fortunately, most of the news articles I read said little to nothing about diversity.  That would be burying the lead; as ATTACK helicopters and doubling the defense budget are far more interesting and controversial.

 

[TCM621]

Fortunately, most of the news articles I read said little to nothing about diversity.  That would be burying the lead; as ATTACK helicopters and doubling the defense budget are far more interesting and controversial.

I would love attack helicopters. Unfortunately, I will never see them. I only have 17 years left.