Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)
- Thread starter Paul Gagnon
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
I guess you never saw the IF in my post there Meridian.
whiskey 601 said:
Hi whiskey 601,
Looking at the map of Canada,and reading some of the comments on this forum,yes I am sure that you are a easy target.
The Canadian Government's policies to immigration,your "soft approach" has opened the door to who knows who.
While you guys are spending hours discussing and speculating about the pros and cons between different units ,I still have to see anyone mention or identifying some sort of threat.
With out a threat there can be no formula for the consolidation or reconstruction of your Armed Services.
Taking in to account the above, it is there fore needless to even try and establish the kind of weapons needed to arm these forces.
The topography of the land(Canada)makes it a security nightmare ! We here in Israel, woke up one morning ,rocked by a terrorist attack in the middle of one of our main cities.They left as they came without a trace,even in the face of the our exceptional security network.
It dawned on us that a new era has arrived,the terrorist organisations are now even using hired guns " foreign mercenaries "Ex -special forces" are being recruited by terrorist organisations,paid large sums of money to do their dirty work for them.
In view of this combined with the relaxed nature of the Canadian government,I believe some one could hide a hole army somewhere in the Canadian country - side and no one will be the wiser.
Protect yourself..... then worry about the rest of the world. Are you going to wait and see,like the US before you guys get of your buts and take the steps to bring your forces in line with a new enemy and new rules of engagement.When ever I read about global terrorism ,Canada's name pops up somewhere.
HELL YES I think you guys have a problem,you just do not know it,because you are to busy trying to be the
"Nice Guys" all around the world !
It is obvious to me, that you due to a very complex coastline and rugged country-side with lots of open spaces,lakes and rivers is in desperate need of a "Marine type" force,Combat Diver,backed by a fast naval strike force and a even better air force.
Small mobile multi-role flexible force is the only way that you will have to combat an attack on your soil effectively.
My time is up.........think carefully about what I said.
"Bubbles Up"
- Reaction score
- 7,484
- Points
- 1,160
Excellent post Sea-dog.
I think one of the reasons we don't discuss threats here is a desire not to cause offence. Some people might feel that to discuss specific threats is to discuss specific people and this might point out differences and cause more internal strife. Certainly some people in this country, if measures were taken to plan for particular events, would use the planning to argue that those plans were directed specifically against their constituents in order to rally their constituents behind them.
However, the security forces, especially the army, navy and air force don't need to concern themselves with the "who". That is the job of the police, the government and the intelligence services.
The defence forces do need to plan for operational and tactical responses to specific threats. And as you point out, a lot of mischief can be made in Canada.
So....without putting names to faces: What types of nastiness could occur in Canada and what can the CF to prevent them and respond to them?
I think one of the reasons we don't discuss threats here is a desire not to cause offence. Some people might feel that to discuss specific threats is to discuss specific people and this might point out differences and cause more internal strife. Certainly some people in this country, if measures were taken to plan for particular events, would use the planning to argue that those plans were directed specifically against their constituents in order to rally their constituents behind them.
However, the security forces, especially the army, navy and air force don't need to concern themselves with the "who". That is the job of the police, the government and the intelligence services.
The defence forces do need to plan for operational and tactical responses to specific threats. And as you point out, a lot of mischief can be made in Canada.
So....without putting names to faces: What types of nastiness could occur in Canada and what can the CF to prevent them and respond to them?
- Reaction score
- 9,292
- Points
- 1,260
Kirkhill said:
Here, here.
It is always nice to get a breath of fresh air from an outside observer. It's kind of hard to check out my roofing tiles when I'm sitting in my Lazy-Boy, having a Tall-one with Kirkhill....
I'll take a shot at this. Remember the refugee vessels that showed up on our Pacific Coast a few years back. What had happened if these boats were not just filled with people trying to flee from an oppresive poverty and political marginalization but also with foreign nationals who were acting on state or sub-state interests to cause a ruckus in North America. Smuggling along our vast Coastline isn't too hard to do, and all one has to do to get over the border to the States is to throw their backpack over the fence at 0 Ave (or if their more organized, serve the infiltrators with a sleeper cell to provide logisitical support an attempt another attack like the guy the caught heading to the Spaceneedle).
Is this threat real and credible?
If it is, then we need more detection and interdiction capabilities on our coasts (sense and act). As Ex-Dragoon has pointed out before, the NBP's are a good first line interdiction force, but they should have some boots-on-the ground backup in the form of Light Infantry capable of deploying by small coastal craft or helicopter (say, if the target in question makes it to the shore and manhunt begins with an RCMP/Military joint op).
Hi there all,
I am happy to see that eventually I managed to create some new ideas,change some of those old philosophies and maybe now we can start again discuss the kind of forces needed ,and therefore the weapons and systems needed to support these kinds of units.
South Africa after years of fighting ,suddenly came to the conclusion that like Canada we have a long and difficult coastline,and to the north 3000 km of bush and uninhabited borders that left us at the time very vulnerable , and we paid for it.
This led to the introduction of mobile Marine units ,fast naval attack craft,a coastal defence system,
supported by mobile radar units and reconnaissance air-craft for early warning and long range identification of possible targets.
Scattered all along the coast,was small integrated naval units consisting of Marines,Naval Diving units/IEOD and EOD units in support of the coastal defence system.
The inshore waters especially near sensitive sea-ports were patrolled and guarded by the Marines with fast well armed ( 12,7mm light machine guns,7,62 mm mags and shot-guns) patrole boats, in some cases we even had the famous Russian RPG (weapons we confiscated from terrorists) on board.
To day you guys are much more privileged,the selection of weapons,and high-tech systems available allows the units to be smaller,more mobile with a even more powerfull selection of weapons to choose from.
I leave it to you guys to argue the best way to go about it,as you know your surroundings much better than I do, however I will remain here down under keeping a eye and lending a helping hand where necessary.Be carefull however not to create a "Hollow Force" it only looks good on paper!
Remember...."When the going gets tough,....the TOUGH gets going !"
Bubbles Up - Divers do it the deepest 1
I am happy to see that eventually I managed to create some new ideas,change some of those old philosophies and maybe now we can start again discuss the kind of forces needed ,and therefore the weapons and systems needed to support these kinds of units.
South Africa after years of fighting ,suddenly came to the conclusion that like Canada we have a long and difficult coastline,and to the north 3000 km of bush and uninhabited borders that left us at the time very vulnerable , and we paid for it.
This led to the introduction of mobile Marine units ,fast naval attack craft,a coastal defence system,
supported by mobile radar units and reconnaissance air-craft for early warning and long range identification of possible targets.
Scattered all along the coast,was small integrated naval units consisting of Marines,Naval Diving units/IEOD and EOD units in support of the coastal defence system.
The inshore waters especially near sensitive sea-ports were patrolled and guarded by the Marines with fast well armed ( 12,7mm light machine guns,7,62 mm mags and shot-guns) patrole boats, in some cases we even had the famous Russian RPG (weapons we confiscated from terrorists) on board.
To day you guys are much more privileged,the selection of weapons,and high-tech systems available allows the units to be smaller,more mobile with a even more powerfull selection of weapons to choose from.
I leave it to you guys to argue the best way to go about it,as you know your surroundings much better than I do, however I will remain here down under keeping a eye and lending a helping hand where necessary.Be carefull however not to create a "Hollow Force" it only looks good on paper!
Remember...."When the going gets tough,....the TOUGH gets going !"
Bubbles Up - Divers do it the deepest 1
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Wow!
I haven't been able to log on in a few months due to work but I am happy to see this thread still going after two years. Have't read all of the replies yet but so far it looks like we've got a great discussion going on.
Carry on. ;D
I haven't been able to log on in a few months due to work but I am happy to see this thread still going after two years. Have't read all of the replies yet but so far it looks like we've got a great discussion going on.
Carry on. ;D
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Why bother with the Coast Guard? Develop a "brown water" capability for the Navy.
- Reaction score
- 9,292
- Points
- 1,260
Do we want to do that? If it means degrading from the Blue Water capability in terms of manpower and resources, would it be better to leave it to the Coast Guard (ie: not the Defence Budget) and concentrate on maintaining our blue water capabilities (ie: replacing the 280's instead of putting those sailors in little dinky coastal cutters).
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,383
- Points
- 1,160
I think we need a "brown water capability" to support joint expeditionary capabilities (see other threads) and I think this capability could serve a secondary role in home waters. However, I think the drug runners & illegal immigrants should remain the primary concern of our security forces (RCMP & Coast Guard). The military should not become the primary actor in these roles.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Infanteer said:
The question is with Hillier as CDS are we going to have much of a Blue Water Navy and capability in the next several years? It is something we can do as we have done inhore ops in the Gulf as well as soverignity patrols here in Canada. We would need to invest in FPBs, PBRs and IPVs to do the job and ask the US to take over offshore patrol duties for Canada because without new money for the CPFs, the JSS and the Single Class Combatant to replace the CPF and 280s then we become and ocean going constabluary.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I have to agree with Ex-Dragoon to a point. If we relied on our military to do these things, we would not be able to support other areas and thus become a constabulary. It looks like our gov has been trying to do that for years now.
Many of those things mentioned can be taken care of with a properly trained and equipped coast guard. Where the hell we get the money for that, I don't know?
Now our friend of South Africa has many good points, and they make alot of sense. However Canada is also a much bigger nation and a bigger player on the international stage. Although that too is becoming more questionable.
To take our forces to this form of strictly internal type security would hurt us even further as far as our foreign policy is concerned. Not that it doesn't need to be changed as well, and for us to take our "heads of our asses".
We must look at all threats, not just those of a particular nature (Internal).
Many of those things mentioned can be taken care of with a properly trained and equipped coast guard. Where the hell we get the money for that, I don't know?
Now our friend of South Africa has many good points, and they make alot of sense. However Canada is also a much bigger nation and a bigger player on the international stage. Although that too is becoming more questionable.
To take our forces to this form of strictly internal type security would hurt us even further as far as our foreign policy is concerned. Not that it doesn't need to be changed as well, and for us to take our "heads of our asses".
We must look at all threats, not just those of a particular nature (Internal).
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
We cannot afford Marines, we can barely keep our small force equiped properly. I did hear that the military will get more money next budget, I think it comes out April 1st... 
Hi there all,
Again it is clear that all members seem to be conditioned that it is Canada's obligation and role to be a global player. This in itself is a very costly decision, and requires a completely different approach,
accompanied with a much larger defence budget !
The Canadian Defence Force should not get involved with politics,however IF it be comes a matter of policy,it is then the responsibility of the politicians to find the funds to supply ,train and support such forces operating out side of Canada's borders.
I fail to comprehend the reason for the Canadian forces to operate in the global combat field,while the Canadian Defence force is struggling to maintain those forces required to defend Canadian soil at home.
You guys are really a "nice bunch" The UN is keeping their forces at home ,while Canada is required to be out there playing the global field with the USA.This at the same time while they are lining their pockets with millions of dollars from the member states including Canada.
Canada is paying double, for such extravagant foreign policies.
To gnplummer421 : Creating a Marine type force ,must be INSTEAD of normal Infantry ground forces,NOT as a supplementary force.
This then will over time be much cheaper as a Marine Force is capable of doing Infantry work ,BUT at the same time they are very mobile and can also be integrated with the Navy to be deployed effectively as a multi-role combat force.Since one force is now effectively doing 2 jobs it will in the future be cost effective !
Many other countries share the financial problems of Canada.The South African Defence force using initiative,and imagination has been playing with a new idea. Containerised defence systems will be the answer for the future. This allows the Defence Force to use a set of standardised vehicles,ships or vessels as the basis of a multi-role defence force.
The Navy will have a standard fast strike hull vessel available ,and by manipulating these different containerized systems can very quickly change the role or function of such a vessel.
This will be very cost effective as the same forces can now be changed to suit the threat.Delays due to defects will be very short as it will only require the changing of a specific container,thus seriously effecting the combat readiness of such forces.
Mobility will not be effected , systems can be changed in the field,ensuring a high standard of fire power,while the old units are taken back to home base for repairs or maintenance.
In conclusion I say that it is not always necessary to have more money,BUT to think of ways to spend those budgets available more effectively.This can only happen if the members of the Canadian Defence force also change their old set view points,think more progressively, using your imagination to create a smaller ,meaner Defence Force.
The sky is the limit ! Bubbles Up !
Again it is clear that all members seem to be conditioned that it is Canada's obligation and role to be a global player. This in itself is a very costly decision, and requires a completely different approach,
accompanied with a much larger defence budget !
The Canadian Defence Force should not get involved with politics,however IF it be comes a matter of policy,it is then the responsibility of the politicians to find the funds to supply ,train and support such forces operating out side of Canada's borders.
I fail to comprehend the reason for the Canadian forces to operate in the global combat field,while the Canadian Defence force is struggling to maintain those forces required to defend Canadian soil at home.
You guys are really a "nice bunch" The UN is keeping their forces at home ,while Canada is required to be out there playing the global field with the USA.This at the same time while they are lining their pockets with millions of dollars from the member states including Canada.
Canada is paying double, for such extravagant foreign policies.
To gnplummer421 : Creating a Marine type force ,must be INSTEAD of normal Infantry ground forces,NOT as a supplementary force.
This then will over time be much cheaper as a Marine Force is capable of doing Infantry work ,BUT at the same time they are very mobile and can also be integrated with the Navy to be deployed effectively as a multi-role combat force.Since one force is now effectively doing 2 jobs it will in the future be cost effective !
Many other countries share the financial problems of Canada.The South African Defence force using initiative,and imagination has been playing with a new idea. Containerised defence systems will be the answer for the future. This allows the Defence Force to use a set of standardised vehicles,ships or vessels as the basis of a multi-role defence force.
The Navy will have a standard fast strike hull vessel available ,and by manipulating these different containerized systems can very quickly change the role or function of such a vessel.
This will be very cost effective as the same forces can now be changed to suit the threat.Delays due to defects will be very short as it will only require the changing of a specific container,thus seriously effecting the combat readiness of such forces.
Mobility will not be effected , systems can be changed in the field,ensuring a high standard of fire power,while the old units are taken back to home base for repairs or maintenance.
In conclusion I say that it is not always necessary to have more money,BUT to think of ways to spend those budgets available more effectively.This can only happen if the members of the Canadian Defence force also change their old set view points,think more progressively, using your imagination to create a smaller ,meaner Defence Force.
The sky is the limit ! Bubbles Up !
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,991
- Points
- 1,010
Gnplmmr421,
It would actually cost us less if we binned our mentality (from WWII) of trying to maintain large brigades of mechanized forces (we don't have the kit to move them) and go to a truly expiditionary force. Look at a USMC Battalion landing team (It is very similar to a full size Canadian BG) but it is designed to deploy quickly.
It would actually cost us less if we binned our mentality (from WWII) of trying to maintain large brigades of mechanized forces (we don't have the kit to move them) and go to a truly expiditionary force. Look at a USMC Battalion landing team (It is very similar to a full size Canadian BG) but it is designed to deploy quickly.
We should not assume that by creating a new force,that it automatically means the end of another.
Creating a new type of force could mean the intergration of forces,joining the best capabilities of several units to create ONE more powerfull,flexible,combined force.
It is important to clearly define the role of the Canadian Defence force for the future in a post 9/11 era and seriously taking into account the new threat of global terrorism.
Considering the above it is vital to change old mind sets,be creative and use your imagination.
The RC factor "resistance to change" creates tunnel vision, and this can only lead to the ultimate deterioration of the whole of the Canadian Armed Forces.
A important point to always remember and the only factor to be used in the design of a new defence force is that ultimately the perpose of the Canadian Defence Force is to "PROTECT" Canada and it is not there to promote American foreign policy.
Cheers and Bubbles Up !
Creating a new type of force could mean the intergration of forces,joining the best capabilities of several units to create ONE more powerfull,flexible,combined force.
It is important to clearly define the role of the Canadian Defence force for the future in a post 9/11 era and seriously taking into account the new threat of global terrorism.
Considering the above it is vital to change old mind sets,be creative and use your imagination.
The RC factor "resistance to change" creates tunnel vision, and this can only lead to the ultimate deterioration of the whole of the Canadian Armed Forces.
A important point to always remember and the only factor to be used in the design of a new defence force is that ultimately the perpose of the Canadian Defence Force is to "PROTECT" Canada and it is not there to promote American foreign policy.
Cheers and Bubbles Up !
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,811
- Points
- 1,110
Sea-Dog,
Fresh perspectives are welcome and you are right that a military force should have its roles and tasks in mind when creating structures and obtaining equipment. I would say, however, that the Canadian security situation is somewhat different than Israel, South Africa and many other countries. Israel and South Africa can find potential enemies (both conventional and unconventional) close by without resorting to great leaps of imagination. Canada, on the other hand, is defended by geography on three sides (oceans and the arctic) and the USA to our south. This does not mean that we do not have threats, but rather that perhaps they are best dealt with by Canada's various security agencies and not primarily the military. The military is prepared, however, to assist civil authorities in all manner of situations.
Ultimately the role of the Canadian Forces is to defend Canada, of course, but I would prefer if that defence happened on foreign soil. Our various "peacekeeping" missions may have had an altruistic flavour, but our more recent deployments have been oriented at establishing security in foreign countries to prevent a widening conflict as well as being part of the war against terror. Another role for our forces is to go after threats overseas either before or after they strike our interests. A force geared to prevent smuggling (drugs, people etc) will not be well disposed to mounting expeditions.
Cheers,
2B
Fresh perspectives are welcome and you are right that a military force should have its roles and tasks in mind when creating structures and obtaining equipment. I would say, however, that the Canadian security situation is somewhat different than Israel, South Africa and many other countries. Israel and South Africa can find potential enemies (both conventional and unconventional) close by without resorting to great leaps of imagination. Canada, on the other hand, is defended by geography on three sides (oceans and the arctic) and the USA to our south. This does not mean that we do not have threats, but rather that perhaps they are best dealt with by Canada's various security agencies and not primarily the military. The military is prepared, however, to assist civil authorities in all manner of situations.
Ultimately the role of the Canadian Forces is to defend Canada, of course, but I would prefer if that defence happened on foreign soil. Our various "peacekeeping" missions may have had an altruistic flavour, but our more recent deployments have been oriented at establishing security in foreign countries to prevent a widening conflict as well as being part of the war against terror. Another role for our forces is to go after threats overseas either before or after they strike our interests. A force geared to prevent smuggling (drugs, people etc) will not be well disposed to mounting expeditions.
Cheers,
2B
