PDA

View Full Version : Question - What do Americans want of the CF?



Officer of Engineers
16 Dec 04,, 17:36
As I read this forum, there are two minds of the Canadian Forces that seemed to be held by the Americans.

1) We don't spend enough on defence.

2) What we do spend produces some of the best soldiers, sailors, and airmen on earth.

Allow me to laid the foundation of this question.

Canada is protected by 3 oceans which is a far more effective defence than anything the US can provide. Statements such as Canada would be invaded by Norway if it were not for the US ignores fundamental defence situations. Any force the Chinese, Russians, Indians, Pakistanis, Israelis, Norweigans would able to land on Canadian soil would be wiped out within the day. That is just a simple fact of insufficent logistics.

Thus, the CF is an expeditionary force. Under the 1994 White Paper, Canada would provide a naval warship, a battalion group, and/or a fighter squadron within 7 days. Within 30 days, this would be expanded to a naval task group, 3 battle groups or a brigade (defined as 3 infantry battalions, 1 armoured battalion-size regiment, 1 artillery battalion-sized regiment, 1 engineer battalion-sized regiment, and a combat service battalion), and/or an air wing.

Where do you Americans want us to spend more money on? What do you want us to do? Please take into account our population size. Fielding an peacetime army of 1 million strong is just not realistic.

Bill
16 Dec 04,, 18:44
"Statements such as Canada would be invaded by Norway if it were not for the US ignores fundamental defence situations. Any force the Chinese, Russians, Indians, Pakistanis, Israelis, Norweigans would able to land on Canadian soil would be wiped out within the day. That is just a simple fact of insufficent logistics."

The same is true for the US, yet here we sit with a 2 million strong armed forces.

And BTW, during the cold war the US did protect Canada's airspace. ;)

dalem
16 Dec 04,, 18:57
Semi-silly answer:

Build a force of logistics and transport since our procurement folks don't think they are sexy enough for consideration. Plus, think if the fun you could have when one of us Yanks gets all "Hey man, Canada is like totally wimpy and you'd all be speaking Tagalog if it wasn't for us!" and you can simply say "Shut up and don't bother the driver or I'll take your butt back home."

Serious answer:

I would like to see at least a doubling of Canadian Defense spending, but I believe it would be best spent in terms of a) keeping Canada's coasts secure, and b) maintaining the specialist expeditionary forces you do well (in addition to the actual defense needs for the nation). If we are agreed that Canada cannot/will not maintain a large standing army, then I think that maintaining a strong specialist force that you are willing to use is the right way to go.

The other half of the question is whether the political will to use such a force when needed is present. No one will care how you spend your defence money if your forces aren't used when needed. The EU faces the same question.

-dale

Officer of Engineers
16 Dec 04,, 19:03
The same is true for the US, yet here we sit with a 2 million strong armed forces.

The US is a World Power since the end of the American Civil War. Fairly or unfairly, the Americans lived up to that title.


And BTW, during the cold war the US did protect Canada's airspace. ;)

The Distance Early Warning Line and NORAD. However, the 1st line of defence was always the CF Air Command. However, I do not envy the guys manning the DEW Line. It's friggin cold up there ... with the most exciting thing on TV was the local CBC broadcast. The weekly part was Hockey Night In Canada on Sat nights. People talk about the combat but rarely mention the other 90% of a tour - complete and utter boredom. And it was boring up there.

Officer of Engineers
16 Dec 04,, 19:23
I would like to see at least a doubling of Canadian Defense spending, but I believe it would be best spent in terms of a) keeping Canada's coasts secure, and b) maintaining the specialist expeditionary forces you do well (in addition to the actual defense needs for the nation). If we are agreed that Canada cannot/will not maintain a large standing army, then I think that maintaining a strong specialist force that you are willing tio use is the right way to go.

What would you have us buy? More frigates? More destroyers? Or the new training vessels that we now are buying to be used for coast guard duties? Do you favour the expansion to include a Canadian Division? Or just adding more to what we already have? Another brigade? Another wing? Another naval task group? I'm trying to find out what you want us to have.


The other half of the question is whether the political will to use such a force when needed is present. No one will care how you spend your defense money if your forces aren't used when needed. The EU faces the same question.

-dale

The political will to send us to every hotspot on earth is there. The money for the operations, however, ain't.

dalem
16 Dec 04,, 19:55
What would you have us buy? More frigates? More destroyers? Or the new training vessels that we now are buying to be used for coast guard duties? Do you favour the expansion to include a Canadian Division? Or just adding more to what we already have? Another brigade? Another wing? Another naval task group? I'm trying to find out what you want us to have.

Well a lot of that is beyond my level of expertise - I am no more than a well-informed armchair opinionator - but I would think that your coast guard duties are more significant than another DD or two - we have plenty of Navy I think. Likewise, I wouldn't see an expansion of your air force beyond Canada's defence needs as paramount, although more friendly interceptors never seems like a bad idea...

Expanding ground forces to a full division, or 3 brigades, or whatever the best arrangement is, seems to make sense to me, but again, I'd rather see 2 brigades that "worked" and could rotate back and forth for each other, than 3 brigades that look good on paper.

With the Leopards gone and no intent to replace them, I think that automatically refocuses Canadian ground force strengths into areas of security and SOF.



The political will to send us to every hotspot on earth is there. The money for the operations, however, ain't.

I think that is true.

-dale

Blademaster
16 Dec 04,, 20:36
What would you have us buy? More frigates? More destroyers? Or the new training vessels that we now are buying to be used for coast guard duties? Do you favour the expansion to include a Canadian Division? Or just adding more to what we already have? Another brigade? Another wing? Another naval task group? I'm trying to find out what you want us to have.



The political will to send us to every hotspot on earth is there. The money for the operations, however, ain't.


Since I am now an American citizen, what we want is more brigades with the ability to transport themselves. Meaning, when you get another brigade, you gotta get more transport planes.

If not more brigades, then hell, just more transport planes will do the job. Believe me, you will end doing the Americans a very big favor.

The problem with American forces is not the lack of combat power. We got enough of it. But, we don't have enough transports. Hell, if you just get rid of all the combat planes and just buy like around 200 C-5 planes. We'd be happy to guard your airspace without any charge and won't complain in exchange for the rights to use those transport planes.


Transport planes are the key.

Bill
16 Dec 04,, 20:44
Logistics would be nice.

Officer of Engineers
17 Dec 04,, 00:20
Well, for your requests, I have some good news.

The naval repleminishment ship is well on its way. There's a debate whether or not to add a ski ramp (for obvious reasons).

The C-130J, the latest workhorse is going through as scheduled. Expecting the contract to be announced sometime in 2006. Talks are under way with both the USAF and EUROCORPs to jointly buy either the C-17s or the A400Ms respectively. Canada wants to pay 20% of the cost of a fleet to be used 20% of the time for Canadian needs. Right now, the USAF seems to be winning the budget proposal since politics is interfering with EUROCORP's A400M buy.

Land Force currently has 3 medium brigades being transformed into a medium brigade and two light brigades. Prime Minister Martin in his throne speech has stated the creation of a peacekeeping brigade. However, the TOE and monies have yet to be decided. The future role for Canadian Land Force is recee-by-force.

Maritme Command current big projects are the Sea King replacement program and the VICTORIA (former UPHOLDER) subs.

Air Command is involved in the JSF talks.

However, all this is going on with the current budgets. I like to see Foreign Affairs start paying operational costs instead of us raiding the capital budgets which has had dired effects. Trucks were maintained well past their prime such as the ill fated Iltis fiasco.

So, we are doing what you want. What more do you want?

Confed999
17 Dec 04,, 02:48
I don't think I have any problems with the CF.

dalem
17 Dec 04,, 09:20
So, we are doing what you want. What more do you want?

Hot brunette Canadian soldier-chicks temporarily stationed in my house.

Well, you asked. :)

-dale

Ray
17 Dec 04,, 09:49
Colonel,

Logistically to organise an expeditonary force sea bound is a difficult task.

That is why even the US are looking at it in a new light!

Officer of Engineers
17 Dec 04,, 15:32
Colonel,

Logistically to organise an expeditonary force sea bound is a difficult task.

That is why even the US are looking at it in a new light!
Sir,

5 C-17s or 8 A400M will deliver a battle group into theatre. The USAF might be able to deliver a SBCT in 48 hours if they scrounge up every plane they've got. There is no other choice to deliver a disvision other than sea lift.

The USArmy is again reliant on pre-positioning. However, there is very little room to pre-position anything in Asia and none in Africa.

Blademaster
17 Dec 04,, 18:26
Sir,

5 C-17s or 8 A400M will deliver a battle group into theatre. The USAF might be able to deliver a SBCT in 48 hours if they scrounge up every plane they've got. There is no other choice to deliver a disvision other than sea lift.

The USArmy is again reliant on pre-positioning. However, there is very little room to pre-position anything in Asia and none in Africa.

Canada should get like around 18 C-17s.

Officer of Engineers
17 Dec 04,, 20:28
Canada should get like around 18 C-17s.
Not cost-effective. The Russians do a better job.

Blademaster
17 Dec 04,, 21:56
Not cost-effective. The Russians do a better job.

How so?

Why is C-17 not cost effective?

Officer of Engineers
17 Dec 04,, 22:02
How so?

Why is C-17 not cost effective?
AEROFLOT is currently dominating the mass air transport market. They've already written off the capital investments when the old USSR collapsed. Thus, their rates are unbeatable. The only reason why CF-AC/EUROCORP/USAF want their own birds is because of dependency issues. You don't want your LOG train to be subject to someone else's schedule. However, for large moves, such as a brigade or a division, you simply cannot beat their costs.

Blademaster
17 Dec 04,, 22:43
AEROFLOT is currently dominating the mass air transport market. They've already written off the capital investments when the old USSR collapsed. Thus, their rates are unbeatable. The only reason why CF-AC/EUROCORP/USAF want their own birds is because of dependency issues. You don't want your LOG train to be subject to someone else's schedule. However, for large moves, such as a brigade or a division, you simply cannot beat their costs.

How well does IL-76 compare to US counterparts? That's what India has.

What about the An -225? How does it compare to C-17?

Officer of Engineers
18 Dec 04,, 00:49
How well does IL-76 compare to US counterparts? That's what India has.

What about the An -225? How does it compare to C-17?
Does the fact that the US DOD hire AEROFLOT mean anything?

Officer of Engineers
18 Dec 04,, 01:15
Hot brunette Canadian soldier-chicks temporarily stationed in my house.

Well, you asked. :)

-dale
Too bad Project Clothe The Soldier is completed, otherwise, you would love the job of finding bras for our uniformed women members. It has been determined we need six different types. How they determined that, I have no idea. Guess I was too busy looking at the wrong breast plate.

Bluesman
18 Dec 04,, 02:19
Too bad Project Clothe The Soldier is completed, otherwise, you would love the job of finding bras for our uniformed members. It has been determined we need six different types. How they determined that, I have no idea. Guess I was too busy looking at the wrong breast plate.

Snortgiggleguffaw... :biggrin:

Veni Vidi Vici
19 Dec 04,, 21:54
What do I expect of the CF?... hmmmm an Invasion of France would be a good start. :biggrin:

j/k I like sohail too much to wish an invasion on his country, although I wouldn't mind if chirac accidentaly popped a blood vessal or something.

Bluesman
19 Dec 04,, 22:36
What do I expect of the CF?... hmmmm an Invasion of France would be a good start. :biggrin:

j/k I like sohail too much to wish an invasion on his country, although I wouldn't mind if chirac accidentaly popped a blood vessal or something.

Right on. Can I get a hoo-ah?

Officer of Engineers
20 Dec 04,, 01:11
What do I expect of the CF?... hmmmm an Invasion of France would be a good start. :biggrin:

Errrrrr, I've actually been to France. Why would I want to go back?

Julie
20 Dec 04,, 01:30
Right on. Can I get a hoo-ah?HOO-AH :biggrin:

Bill
20 Dec 04,, 03:11
I'll second that hoo-ah. :)

Bluesman
20 Dec 04,, 06:03
Awesome hoo-ahs, y'all. :cool:

Veni Vidi Vici
20 Dec 04,, 20:17
Well I can see I'm not the only one who holds this believe. :biggrin:

Hoo-Ah :biggrin:

Officer of Engineers
24 Feb 05,, 03:28
If true, then, Canada is the only other country aside from the US to have a sector of its own.



Canada to send combat brigade to Afghanistan
by Richard Sunday February 13, 2005 at 01:39 PM

More troops to Afghanistan

MUNICH, Germany (AP) — Canada will nearly double the number of troops it has in Afghanistan by this summer and is considering sending a combat brigade to the Kandahar region early next year, Defence Minister Bill Graham told The Associated Press today.

Canada currently has some 600 troops serving in the Afghan capital of Kabul with NATO's International Security Assistance Force, and plans to put a provincial reconstruction team, or PRT, in the southern city of Kandahar by August, Graham said.

The PRT, which aims to boost stability while working on humanitarian projects such as building schools and clinics, would be part of an overall expansion of peacekeepers into the southern region later this year.

"Canada will be there for establishing a PRT in Kandahar in August, that will be the first step," Graham told AP on the sidelines of an international security conference in Munich. "We will have the 600 in Kabul still, so that means we'll be up to the 1,000 to 1,100 range."

At a NATO defence ministers' meeting in France on Thursday, Canada expressed willingness to take a leading role in the Kandahar area. Graham said that could include adding a brigade of between 700 and 1,200 troops to the region in spring 2006, ready to take part in combat operations, in addition to the PRT.

"If we were to put the additional brigade in, obviously it would be part of Operation Enduring Freedom," he said, using the name of Washington's anti-terrorism drive in Afghanistan.

If the combat brigade is sent in, Graham said the Kabul-based peacekeepers would likely come home, although those being sent to Kandahar would remain.

He emphasized, however, that the exact Canadian role in Kandahar will depend on many factors, including the stability of the region, and it "is something that is being fleshed out at this time."

Canada supports the U.S. push to integrate the NATO mission in Iraq with the U.S.-led mission currently fighting remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaida, but is still studying how closely the two forces should be fused, Graham said

Eagle1
24 Feb 05,, 05:11
Any country that shares a border with the United States doesnt need a military.

Save your money.

Officer of Engineers
24 Feb 05,, 06:01
Any country that shares a border with the United States doesnt need a military.

Save your money.

Wrong!

We need a military because the US needs a Canadian military. If for no other reason than to share the political responsibility.

FYI, Canada historically has taken a far more leadership role than the US. We were in WWI and WWII alot earlier than the Americans. We're the 2nd most deployed army in NATO, the 1st being the UK.

It is not that the US is incapable of taking the leadership role but that Canada has taken more the risk in doing so.

dalem
24 Feb 05,, 06:24
Thank you Canada! And Australia and everyone else, but for this thread -

Go Canada!

-dale

FlyingCaddy
09 Mar 05,, 19:11
Thus, the CF is an expeditionary force. Under the 1994 White Paper, Canada would provide a naval warship, a battalion group, and/or a fighter squadron within 7 days. Within 30 days, this would be expanded to a naval task group, 3 battle groups or a brigade (defined as 3 infantry battalions, 1 armoured battalion-size regiment, 1 artillery battalion-sized regiment, 1 engineer battalion-sized regiment, and a combat service battalion), and/or an air wing.

Where do you Americans want us to spend more money on? What do you want us to do? Please take into account our population size. Fielding an peacetime army of 1 million strong is just not realistic.

I agree with you it would be ridiculous for Canada to maintain a 1 million man force with only a population of 30 million, I am not certain how large the Norwegian Army is but its probably similar in size to Canada's. A nations Military size has to be considered by population not land mass. But I do think if the US didnt own Alaska and control Greenland, Canada would need a larger navy and army force to be on watch in the Territories, especially in the ever so limited Summer and Spring. Some psycho Sweed could launch an Operation Barbarossa and make a mad dash for Ottawa. Not saying it would succeed but it would be better to repell them at the beaches or in the sea then to wait for General WInter to attack.

Officer of Engineers
09 Mar 05,, 19:38
I agree with you it would be ridiculous for Canada to maintain a 1 million man force with only a population of 30 million, I am not certain how large the Norwegian Army is but its probably similar in size to Canada's. A nations Military size has to be considered by population not land mass. But I do think if the US didnt own Alaska and control Greenland, Canada would need a larger navy and army force to be on watch in the Territories, especially in the ever so limited Summer and Spring. Some psycho Sweed could launch an Operation Barbarossa and make a mad dash for Ottawa. Not saying it would succeed but it would be better to repell them at the beaches or in the sea then to wait for General WInter to attack.
The permenant ice pack does wonders to any army (both defender and attacker).

FlyingCaddy
10 Mar 05,, 17:35
FYI, Canada historically has taken a far more leadership role than the US. We were in WWI and WWII alot earlier than the Americans. We're the 2nd most deployed army in NATO, the 1st being the UK.


Dont you mean it entered WWI and WWII becasue of its responsibilites as a dominion of the British Empire. And what do you mean the second most deployed nation in NATO I guess those bases in Germany and Italy are just there for decoration.

Officer of Engineers
10 Mar 05,, 17:38
Dont you mean it entered WWI and WWII becasue of its responsibilites as a dominion of the British Empire.

Yes but as an equal, not as a subsesrvant.


And what do you mean the second most deployed nation in NATO I guess those bases in Germany and Italy are just there for decoration.

I mean UNPROFOR, IFOR, SFOR, KFOR, UNAMIR, etc

Prairie Canuck
25 Apr 05,, 19:07
Good day to all!
I’ve been viewing this site for a few months now have found it informative with only the odd “off-balanced” comment. I can’t say I can contribute often but am more interested in the opinions of “experts”. I’ll still reserve my right to disagree and with that ….
You’ve asked what our neighbours would like of us but I believe we can make our own choices in determining what we need. A strong well equipped Force ready to react to whatever crisis arises would likely be satisfactory to our American “Buds”.
Here is my Layman’s analysis of what our forces need. Please feel free to dissect it..

CANADIAN NAVAL REQUIREMENTS

3 – Heavy Ice Breaker / frigate equipped / possible submarine AOR
2 – Medium sized Amphibious assault carriers with landing craft or hovercraft
4 – Medium sized AOLs (Halifax hull)
8 – Offshore Patrol Vessels, ice capable, 90m, 35+ kts, 40 crew max
4 - Long range arctic capable submarines
4 - Area Air Defense destroyers (Halifax hulled)
- Convert all to latest Aegis compatible systems
20 – Fast attack “river” patrol vessels, 40kts. 10 crew
- Port facilities
- New Arctic port

cost?
Additional Personnel? 4,000

CANADIAN AIR FORCE REQUIREMENTS

10 – Large Strategic Airlifters
20 – C-130 sized transports / arctic capable
10 – Long range Patrol Aircraft
10 – SAR patrol aircraft
10 – Arctic Patrol Aircraft / Twin Otter replacements
12 - Arctic based fighters
6 – Air to Air refuelers / arctic capable
20 – VSTOL aircraft
- sell off or trade “extra” CF 18s
- Develop or purchase “copter killer” aircraft

cost?
Additional Personnel? 2,000

CANADIAN ARMY REQUIREMENTS

1 – Permanent quick response arctic Battalion; infantry, artillery, light mechanized. Based in Churchill.
-Snowmobiles / 1 and 2 man
-Snow track type light LAVs
-Snow track based light artillery
-Snow tracked mobile air defense
- Convert all artillery to mobile based (M113s)
- Convert Rangers to combat capable reserves
- Re-establish Parachute battalion
- Sell off all but 30 Leopards,
- Develop or purchase fast attack tank killer LAVs
30 – Mine resistant vehicles
30 – Attack helicopters, 4 arctic capable
30 – Medium lift helicopters, air re-fuel capable, 5 arctic capable
- Double the ground logistics capability / defense
- Triple JTF / special forces

cost?
Additional Personnel? 3600

Officer of Engineers
25 Apr 05,, 19:43
Where are we going to get $100bil?

Prairie Canuck
26 Apr 05,, 04:18
My approach was to try to satisfy everyone's wish lists. Obviously it's too much for our budget (though we did spend 2 billion simply registering 25% of the firearms in this country), so make your cuts and lets see whats left..

Officer of Engineers
26 Apr 05,, 04:47
Well,

Realistically, we have the forces and policies already that can be realistically supported by Ottawa. We're not going to get $100bil. We're promised $20bil in 5 years but I'm expecting $17-18bil, $15bil bottom end.

We're at the end of this current procurement cycle and as a result, alot of our equipment simply do not measure up and nobody will want them. The Leo C2s got another 10 years of life left in them and even with storage, we have them for another 15 years on the outside before technology and simple wear and tear render them obsolete. Same kind of thing with the CF-18 fleet. They're going through a mid-life upgrade and those in storage will be used as parts. Nobody wants them at this point. At least, nobody we want or could sell to. We do not want nor are we allowed to sell to Vietnam.

So, basically, we have what we need to do the job right now.

However, I will make a comment about your army requirements.

We don't need an Artic bn. The Rangers are a fine force who could play wild goose chase with any invading force and then leave that force to die out on the ice pack.

As for the rest, just how much do you know of 1 Brigade and its plans?

Franco Lolan
26 Apr 05,, 05:08
What would Canadian response be if PRC started bombing ROC? imposed blockade? invaded?

If military, what actions would be undertaken?

Officer of Engineers
26 Apr 05,, 05:12
Our only possible military response would be a naval task group to support a USN CVBG.

Bill
26 Apr 05,, 16:43
i have yet to chime in with what i'd like to see of the CF.

A bde of modern tanks. Is that really that much to ask from one of the richest nations on earth?

Officer of Engineers
26 Apr 05,, 18:06
A bde of modern tanks. Is that really that much to ask from one of the richest nations on earth?

So do I but we're lacking designs in the 20-30 ton, 40 tops, range. Anything heavier than that and we get into lift issues.

Bill
26 Apr 05,, 18:24
So buy a transport ship too.

Jesus, it's not like you have the economy of Lithuania. Canda is a G7 nation. The problem is your 1%ish GDP defense spending, not lift issues.

Canada needs to step up to the plate and spend some money. I can guarantee that if the US wasn't the world power that it is that you'd have tanks and transports.

Canada gets a free ride because of her proximity to the US. Frankly, i find it highly annoying.

troung
26 Apr 05,, 18:57
I want Canada to keep producing excellent light infantry and special forces units. They did an excellent job in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban and AQ. But maybe another battalion group or so for external operations in peacekeeping and such. And please the M-19 mortar (60mm) is totally old :biggrin: . Tanks who cares.

Maybe pick up some CH-47s and some UH-60s to support allied ground operations. I mean right now they use the Bell-412 which is nice and all but to operate alongside us it makes the log train easier to use the same meduim lift helicopters as us. Not like the Bell 412 is much of a combat helicopter anyways (more a civie bird).

I want them to give the CF-18A/Bs a real upgrade to be able to handle more air to ground operations. For them to pick up the JDAM and such to be able to send a worthwhile force to an air campaign. We don't need a few extra AD planes on operations, Cold War is done and over. During Bosnia the CF-18A/Bs were not of much use because first off they could not "talk" to us and second because the weapons were old. Canada didn't even put in its first LGB until 1999 and it was 300 at that. We don't need an ally to bring in AD tasked planes these days but all weather multi role strikers. And not like the CF-18A/Bs are that great ad AD being F-18s first off and the fact that only now are they putting the AIM-120 into service.

Don't want to be offensive and all.

Officer of Engineers
26 Apr 05,, 19:03
You know, something, Bill? I had this answer all written up on how we, the military, don't have a say in our budgets. I agree 100% with you that we could and should do more.

However, I was going to say that if you were in my shoes, you've couldn't have done better. Then, I caught myself. If you were in charge, we probably end up with a few dozen planes of vairous designs and maybe even an aircraft carrier with somehow the name NIMITZ erased and somehow, all the paperwork (or lack thereof) are in place with a few suggestions of don't ask.

Seriously though, we (the Canadians) have lost our way. I'm not sure when this occurred. Some say it was the veterans who don't want war for our kids who allowed the Hippie Generation to overtake us. The most damage got to be Pierre Trudeau (imagined Clinton elected for 4 terms) who had a true disdain for the military.

You have a right to be annoyed. However, at the same time, there's a political reality we cannot change and I am but one vote.

Franco Lolan
26 Apr 05,, 21:29
Our only possible military response would be a naval task group to support a USN CVBG.

Would the Canadian PM have this occur? Or is the Parliament needed? (Does Canada have somehting along the lines of a War Powers Act) What is the political stance? Would Canada react instantaneously or wait and see international opinion?

Bill
26 Apr 05,, 22:18
It's nothing personal Sir, that rant was not directed at you, but your gov't.

I'm sure if you had your way Canada would have a 2 to 2.5% GDP defense budget, and a real live expeditionary heavy Bde with some transports. ;)

Officer of Engineers
26 Apr 05,, 22:54
No offence taken and I have to admit, the thought of you running the CF brought a smile to my face. Budget? What budget? The Americans have these wonderful toys lying around. I had half a mind to ask you how you would go procurring the stuff without a budget. But then again, would I rather not know?

BTW, have you seen what Accentix did for you?

http://img243.echo.cx/img243/1386/siguser19qy.gif

Wraith601
26 Apr 05,, 23:13
So do I but we're lacking designs in the 20-30 ton, 40 tops, range. Anything heavier than that and we get into lift issues.

What about the Stingray or M8? It's true that neither are a match for a T-90, but they're better than a Stryker MGS based on what I've heard.

Blademaster
27 Apr 05,, 04:41
No offence taken and I have to admit, the thought of you running the CF brought a smile to my face. Budget? What budget? The Americans have these wonderful toys lying around. I had half a mind to ask you how you would go procurring the stuff without a budget. But then again, would I rather not know?

BTW, have you seen what Accentix did for you?

http://img243.echo.cx/img243/1386/siguser19qy.gif

Hey that's not Sniper's quote. I thought it was "one shot, one girl". :biggrin:

dalem
27 Apr 05,, 04:44
Here's another semi-annoying Dale question, not specifically restricted to Canada:

Understanding the budget realities that an ally like Canada (maybe substitute "the UK" too) faces, why don't we just sell you guys a baby CVBG? I mean, we've put 2 into mothballs or the boneyard in the last decade and it looks like we're trying to dump the J F Kennedy too. And we cashiered all the Spruance class DDGs. So...

We sell Canada a medium-old CV/CVN and a few good AAW escorts for a dollar, the stip being that Canada buys a new F-18 wing from us to fly off of the darned thing. Load it up with helos and jet fuel and you're part of the CVBG team at bargain basement prices.

Now I know that there must be huge infrastructure and/or operational costs involved, but it's still cheaper than building from scratch, and better than losing net assets, right? What am I missing?

-dale

Officer of Engineers
27 Apr 05,, 05:01
We sell Canada a medium-old CV/CVN and a few good AAW escorts for a dollar, the stip being that Canada buys a new F-18 wing from us to fly off of the darned thing. Load it up with helos and jet fuel and you're part of the CVBG team at bargain basement prices.

Doesn't those things cost a $1bil a day to operate?

Officer of Engineers
27 Apr 05,, 05:13
What about the Stingray or M8? It's true that neither are a match for a T-90, but they're better than a Stryker MGS based on what I've heard.

All of these are really classified as tank destroyers and not tanks, lacking sufficient armour in a running gun fight and that's what really concerns me in bringing these things into theatre. As inf spt, they have their place and can even put T-90s at risk.

However, there's an old cliche, if it looks like a tank, it will be used as a tank, even if it is not a tank.

Blademaster
27 Apr 05,, 05:46
Doesn't those things cost a $1bil a day to operate?

It's 2 million dollars a day to operate.

troung
27 Apr 05,, 06:03
We sell Canada a medium-old CV/CVN and a few good AAW escorts for a dollar, the stip being that Canada buys a new F-18 wing from us to fly off of the darned thing. Load it up with helos and jet fuel and you're part of the CVBG team at bargain basement prices.

We don't need a Canada struggling to operate a carrier. We need one able to take a bigger role in operations.

The money it would cost them to set that up would be better spent on giving their CF-18A/Bs the AIM-120/AIM-9X and new all weather PGMs (JDAMs at least) to make them more usefull in joint operations. No offense to anyone but Canada didn't even get the GBU-12 until 1999ish and back then (Bosnia/Kosovo) they lacked comm equipment to even work with NATO, and they still fly with the AIM-7M. Give the CF-18A/Bs a bigger upgrade (they are already planning to fit the APG-73/AIM-120/comm stuff) to make them of more use for joint operations.

Maybe get some UH-60/CH-47s to play joint warfare and shorten a log train as well. The Bell 412 (current meduim lift bird there) all said is actually a civie bird not really meant to go out in combat.

I don't see the need for heavy armored units in Canada for the modern day joint operations.

Officer of Engineers
27 Apr 05,, 06:27
The Bell 412 (current meduim lift bird there) all said is actually a civie bird not really meant to go out in combat.

You better sit down for this. We're asking Air Command to turn some of them into gunships.


I don't see the need for heavy armored units in Canada for the modern day joint operations.

I do. If we have use for the MGS, we have use for a tank.

troung
27 Apr 05,, 07:00
You better sit down for this. We're asking Air Command to turn some of them into gunships.

Fell out of my chair.

OMG you guys have lost your minds :) . I mean if Indonesia wanted to use theirs to fire rockets and spary machine guns at bow and arrow armed guerillas that's one thing, but Canada fighting more combat ready foes? I mean with a good UH-1M style weapons system (7 70mm rockets and 1 gatling guns on each side) it could provide some escort for transport models, but gunships againist real enemy forces?

Plus the Bell 412 is damn ugly looking with weapons on the side... ;)

Like I said UH-60s and then maybe make a few into AH-60Ls with Hellfires, gunpods, rockets like Colombia uses. The UH-60 is better suited for entering combat (yes I know they can be shot down) and better at high altitude operations (like Afghanistan). At least those are more crashworthy and could make log work easier as we use the UH-60 and so do other possible allies.

But in reality...

I guess it is to late to undo the Bell 412, which in fact is really unable to combat lift an LG-1 Mk.2 105mm gun but came cheaper. Of course hanging rockets and machine guns off the Bell 412 does at the end of the day save money. It all depends how they plan to use them....


I do. If we have use for the MGS, we have use for a tank.

Me I'm more thinking being deployable. A MGS is more deployable then a tank. Of course one could save the money on a new tank by just keeping the Leo-1 around as it could be used for infantry support and anti tank duties.

-------
Maybe we Americans should want Canada to up the budget some.

I think you guys already spend like 12.7 billion :eek: . Got a 20 something thousand man army, a small air force (many CF-18s with outdated systems/weapons and many in storage up for sale) and a decently sized navy where ever does the money go... :tongue:

Officer of Engineers
27 Apr 05,, 11:36
Fell out of my chair.

But in reality...

I guess it is to late to undo the Bell 412, which in fact is really unable to combat lift an LG-1 Mk.2 105mm gun but came cheaper. Of course hanging rockets and machine guns off the Bell 412 does at the end of the day save money. It all depends how they plan to use them....

I'm thinking that more of a distraction than anything else. The enemy is too busy shooting at them to notice us bellycrawlers. However, it does at least make us aware of the potential and limitations of tac rotor aviation.


Me I'm more thinking being deployable. A MGS is more deployable then a tank. Of course one could save the money on a new tank by just keeping the Leo-1 around as it could be used for infantry support and anti tank duties.

The LEO C2s would be around to at least 2015 by which time simple wear and tear would render it inoperative.


-------
Maybe we Americans should want Canada to up the budget some.

You know how long it took me to buck for a raise?


I think you guys already spend like 12.7 billion :eek: . Got a 20 something thousand man army, a small air force (many CF-18s with outdated systems/weapons and many in storage up for sale) and a decently sized navy where ever does the money go... :tongue:

Most of it went into operations. We did six out of the blue unexpected wartime operations (Kuwait, Somalia, E Timor, Kosovo, 11 Sept, Afghanistan) with an actual decrease in the budgets.

The money is PROMISED to rise to $20bil a year in 4 years time. From the recently release Defence Policy Statement.


Transformation Initiatives

The Canadian Forces-including their national assets (such as headquarters, surveillance, and command and control), as well as maritime, air, land and special operations forces-will proceed with specific measures to support the transformation concepts described above.

With respect to national assets, the Canadian Forces will:

* form a unified Canadian Forces national command structure and system that:
o commands and directs integrated Canadian Forces operations at all levels, both domestically and internationally,
o generates the required combination of maritime, air, land, and special operations forces to respond to domestic and international contingencies, and
o includes a common information and intelligence network, along with common standards and procedures;
* expand and enhance their information and intelligence fusion capability to better assess large amounts of intelligence in support of military and government decision making; and
* establish a unified concepts, doctrine and experimentation unit that will rely on advanced simulation to develop new capabilities for the evolving operational environment.

With respect to special operations capabilities, the Canadian Forces will:

* enlarge Joint Task Force 2 to enhance its ability to carry out missions at home and abroad, either alone or as part of the Special Operations Group;
* expand the Joint Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Defence Company to better protect Canadians at home as well as Canadian Forces units deployed on domestic and international operations; and
* improve special operations training capabilities.

With respect to maritime capabilities, the Canadian Forces will:

* enhance the ability of their ships to support the Special Operations Group, and carry out littoral operations as part of the Standing Contingency Task Force and Mission-Specific Task Forces;
* proceed with the acquisition of ships that will be able to:
o pre-position or deploy the Standing Contingency Task Force,
o support land operations,
o provide a sea-based national or multinational command capability,
o deploy tactical unmanned aerial vehicles, and
o sustain naval task group operations worldwide;
* complete, in the near term, the process of bringing the Victoria-class submarines into service. This will provide the Canadian Forces with a flexible and highly capable platform to conduct a wide range of operations in our waters and overseas;
* modernize the combat systems and electronics of the Halifax-class frigates to maintain their ability to participate in Alliance and coalition operations;
* acquire weapon systems for surface ships to enable them to support and protect forces operating ashore; and
* begin to define the requirements for a new class of surface ship to replace the current destroyers and frigates over the longer term.

With respect to aerospace capabilities, the Canadian Forces will:

* complete the modernization of the CF-18 through the acquisition of a satellite-guided air-to-ground weapons capability to reflect the increased focus on close support to ground forces, while retaining its air-to-air capability at existing levels;
* complete the acquisition of new maritime helicopters;
* acquire medium- to heavy-lift helicopters, as announced in Budget 2005, to support land and special operations missions, including transporting large numbers of personnel and heavy equipment from forward deployed bases or from a maritime platform;
* replace the Buffalo and Hercules aircraft used for fixed-wing search and rescue;
* acquire, or ensure access to, the right mix of capabilities to meet the increasing requirements for domestic, global and in-theatre airlift;
* complete the modernization of the Aurora maritime patrol aircraft;
* complete the conversion of two Airbus aircraft into air-to-air refuellers;
* acquire unmanned aerial vehicles to support domestic and international operations; and
* pursue the use of satellites to support domestic and international operations.

With respect to land capabilities, the Canadian Forces will:

* increase the size of their Regular units as part of the expansion of the Forces by 5,000 people. By increasing the "tooth-to-tail ratio"-the number of people capable of being deployed on operations compared to those in administrative overhead-the land forces will be able to more effectively support the Special Operations Group, the Standing Contingency Task Force, and Mission-Specific Task Forces;
* improve the communications, mobility, firepower and support capabilities of the light forces so they can better integrate with the Special Operations Group and more effectively contribute to the Standing Contingency Task Force and Mission-Specific Task Forces;
* increase the Reserves by 3,000 people. This will include:
o completing Phase II of the Land Force Reserve Restructure Program (including the Medical and Communications Reserves), raising the authorized end-state to 18,500 personnel. This will improve the Canadian Forces' ability to respond to domestic contingencies and address specific capabilities required for overseas deployments;
* complete the acquisition and development of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems, and integrate these into other Canadian Forces and allied sensor systems; and
* continue to transform into a modern, combat-capable medium-weight force, based primarily on wheeled Light Armoured Vehicles, including the Mobile Gun System and the Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle (to replace the direct-fire role of the Leopard tank), a new platform to deliver indirect fire, and a new fleet of medium transport trucks.

With respect to disaster relief, the Canadian Forces will:

enhance the capabilities of the Disaster Assistance Response Team. Building on lessons learned over the past several years (including the most recent deployment to Sri Lanka), the Forces will examine ways to make the team more deployable, including by making it lighter and more modular, that is, capable of being deployed in different combinations of its component parts.

dave angel
27 Apr 05,, 12:19
Here's another semi-annoying Dale question, not specifically restricted to Canada:

Understanding the budget realities that an ally like Canada (maybe substitute "the UK" too) faces, why don't we just sell you guys a baby CVBG? I mean, we've put 2 into mothballs or the boneyard in the last decade and it looks like we're trying to dump the J F Kennedy too. And we cashiered all the Spruance class DDGs. So...

We sell Canada a medium-old CV/CVN and a few good AAW escorts for a dollar, the stip being that Canada buys a new F-18 wing from us to fly off of the darned thing. Load it up with helos and jet fuel and you're part of the CVBG team at bargain basement prices.

Now I know that there must be huge infrastructure and/or operational costs involved, but it's still cheaper than building from scratch, and better than losing net assets, right? What am I missing?

-dale

the 'bulk buy' option is an obvious solution to the telephone number like costs of modern defence programs, but two issues - for all countries - crop up: by building our own equipment we maintain our own national technological and defence industries and to a fair degree we keep the money at home, a more 'defency' issue is that we aren't reliant on another country for spares and support - the obvious example is iran, on monday they have a very modern, capable air force with great support from the providing country, on tuesday that support evaporates and by friday nothing works. in an age where military systems are supposed to last for 30 years and more no one can take the risk of support drying up and being left with very expensive paperweights.

personally i would be quite happy for the RAF and RN to cancel the Typhoon and JSF and buy new build F15 E/T's for the RAF and AMRAAM capable Harrier GR9's for the RAF and RN, i'm sure they would be cheaper and they are obviously combat proven. if the F15's could be built in the UK then we would be able to say we were spending the money at home and not reliant upon any future US government for spares and upgrade technology.

as for the carrier idea, would an ex-USN carrier take the 30 odd years of expected service the RN would want out of it? again we come to the problem of spending the money at home - it would be very difficult to politically justify buying ex-USN stock while british shipyards sit idle.

going back to the roles of british/canadian/australian forces with relation to US forces, perhaps if the US could provide both long-term assurance of product support and cheap licencing agreements for new home country built assets the three countries could plough the savings they make into an serious increase in the areas of military power that they do particularly well - like infantry, special forces and ASW.

my understanding is that the US doesn't need x hundred new fighter intercepter / strike aircraft from its allies, it needs highy trained, well equiped and well lead infantry and special forces and air forces that are capable of moving large formations over long distances at no-notice and navies that are capable of handling sierra leone/east timor type operations.

the days when britain (for example) could maintain a large force that was the equal of all others in every sphere of warfare are long gone, so if the US could allow its partners to buy high end equipment on attractive licencing agreements those partners could perhaps concentrate on the areas that they do well in and the US needs assistance in.

a healthy and logical division of labour for the good of all - see, told you i was a communist!

troung
27 Apr 05,, 20:04
my understanding is that the US doesn't need x hundred new fighter intercepter / strike aircraft from its allies, it needs highy trained, well equiped and well lead infantry and special forces and air forces that are capable of moving large formations over long distances at no-notice and navies that are capable of handling sierra leone/east timor type operations.

As for allied air forces we need people that can handle certain missions. Most of the German air force is of little use other then their EW/SEAD Tornados. So we generally want planes and pilots that can handle a special niche and of course PGM strike missions are always welcomed. It's like the UK in ODS sending over Tornado ADVs which was nice and all but the planes patrolled behind the lines while the Strike Tornados took a big part in the operations. The Mirage 2000D is not the worlds most capable striker but all the pilots do is really train for that mission so they are damn good, we had Mirage 2000Ds flying over Kosovo and Afghanistan but the Mirage 2000Cs sat around.


personally i would be quite happy for the RAF and RN to cancel the Typhoon and JSF and buy new build F15 E/T's for the RAF and AMRAAM capable Harrier GR9's for the RAF and RN, i'm sure they would be cheaper and they are obviously combat proven. if the F15's could be built in the UK then we would be able to say we were spending the money at home and not reliant upon any future US government for spares and upgrade technology.

UK did look at the F-15 back in the day but went for the Tornado ADV. Not the best move as the Tornado was even after "entering service" not even marginally combat ready for years (cement block in the nose rather then a radar). The JSF buy is good as that would give them a modern plane for the future and allow them to work close with the USA and others.

---------
--------
OOE


I'm thinking that more of a distraction than anything else. The enemy is too busy shooting at them to notice us bellycrawlers. However, it does at least make us aware of the potential and limitations of tac rotor aviation.

That is an expensive distraction at best. Being not well protected the helicopter would have to keep well out of the line of fire or risk being killed and becoming a distraction for the ground forces which would have to rescue the crew.


You know how long it took me to buck for a raise?

Probably longer then I have been alive ;)


Most of it went into operations. We did six out of the blue unexpected wartime operations (Kuwait, Somalia, E Timor, Kosovo, 11 Sept, Afghanistan) with an actual decrease in the budgets.

I know I was just messing around.


The Canadian Forces-including their national assets (such as headquarters, surveillance, and command and control), as well as maritime, air, land and special operations forces-will proceed with specific measures to support the transformation concepts described above.

Looks like a bigger role for Canadian Special Forces units.


complete the modernization of the CF-18 through the acquisition of a satellite-guided air-to-ground weapons capability to reflect the increased focus on close support to ground forces, while retaining its air-to-air capability at existing levels;

Yeah that had been what I was talking about. Before Kosovo and such the CF-18s were not of much use in CAS/all weather strike only gettign LGBs in 1999. With some JDAMs and such they could take an important role in a future Afghanistan type event.


The LEO C2s would be around to at least 2015 by which time simple wear and tear would render it inoperative.

Well from what I had read the MGS was supposed to replace them. There are second hand Leopard 2s and M-1s around and many NATO forces are picking up Leopard 2s. And if they buy a new tank they could put the Leo-C2s on the market as 3rd world nations are picking those up.

Wraith601
27 Apr 05,, 20:17
All of these are really classified as tank destroyers and not tanks, lacking sufficient armour in a running gun fight and that's what really concerns me in bringing these things into theatre. As inf spt, they have their place and can even put T-90s at risk.

However, there's an old cliche, if it looks like a tank, it will be used as a tank, even if it is not a tank.

What ytpe of armor would you like to see in Canadian service?

dave angel
27 Apr 05,, 20:44
UK did look at the F-15 back in the day but went for the Tornado ADV. Not the best move as the Tornado was even after "entering service" not even marginally combat ready for years (cement block in the nose rather then a radar). The JSF buy is good as that would give them a modern plane for the future and allow them to work close with the USA and others.

i'm lead to believe that in the late 70's we looked at the F14 and F15 for the air defence role while the USAF looked at the tornado GR1 for a strike/SEAD aircraft. i think that the US government decided to buy 'all american' in principle and not go for the tornado in particular and so the UK govt decided to not buy either of the american aircraft in retaliation, which is why the tornado ADV appeared with its 'blue circle' radar (blue circle is a british cement company and all british aircraft radars are called blue xxx!).

the tornado ADV has been a real disappointment compared to the F15/F14, though the tornado GR1/GR4 has been a major success. unfortunately europe is likely to continue producing limited numbers of expensive aircraft/ships/tanks/rifles while we appear unable to sell equipment to the US because of its 'buy american' policy.

if you won't buy anything from us we're unlikely to want to buy anything from you - losing high tech, high paid jobs while paying £x billion to the US for products the public rarely sees isn't a vote winner.

perfect example: the ALARM missile, significantly better (and combat proven) than the HARM, but the US won't consider it because its not a US product. the last european design bought by the US military was the Harrier - in the 70's.

we would buy from you - on the bulk order principle - if you would by from us, but its just one way traffic, and thats not politically sustainable. hence the SA80/Tornado ADV/Typhoon jobs creation program.

Franco Lolan
27 Apr 05,, 21:55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
Our only possible military response would be a naval task group to support a USN CVBG.



Would the Canadian PM have this occur? Or is the Parliament needed? (Does Canada have somehting along the lines of a War Powers Act) What is the political stance? Would Canada react instantaneously or wait and see international opinion?

Officer of Engineers
28 Apr 05,, 02:11
the days when britain (for example) could maintain a large force that was the equal of all others in every sphere of warfare are long gone, so if the US could allow its partners to buy high end equipment on attractive licencing agreements those partners could perhaps concentrate on the areas that they do well in and the US needs assistance in.

a healthy and logical division of labour for the good of all - see, told you i was a communist!

I will make no bones about this. We're just spear carriers. However, from both the political desirability and a military necessity, we have to be able to conduct independent combat operations at least at the brigade level and below. New Zealand is in somewhat of a crisis in that I cannot see them deploying beyond a re-enforced company for the near future. Operations HARPOON by 3 PPCLI and SNIPE by 45Cmdo comes to mind.


That is an expensive distraction at best. Being not well protected the helicopter would have to keep well out of the line of fire or risk being killed and becoming a distraction for the ground forces which would have to rescue the crew.

You don't like it. I don't like it. However, it is the one piece of puzzle that we're missing in a combined arms operation, however much I hate the fact that we're using a donkey to do the job of a Porche. It's filled. Not good. But filled.


Looks like a bigger role for Canadian Special Forces units.

The Special Operations Group will be our initial response force. I'm not sure it will be the right force, essentially, turning the JTF II from Black Ops (A Squadron)/Green Ops (B Squadron) Force to an Airborne (Ranger) force. On taskings, I expect the light infantry battalions to flush out the numbers as required.


Yeah that had been what I was talking about. Before Kosovo and such the CF-18s were not of much use in CAS/all weather strike only gettign LGBs in 1999. With some JDAMs and such they could take an important role in a future Afghanistan type event.

To be honest, I'm not too comfortable with my birdbrains crapping near me. They've been hunting pigeons for far too long to change their menu to rats.


Well from what I had read the MGS was supposed to replace them. There are second hand Leopard 2s and M-1s around and many NATO forces are picking up Leopard 2s. And if they buy a new tank they could put the Leo-C2s on the market as 3rd world nations are picking those up.

Two vehicles are replacing the role of the LEO C2s. The MGS and Multi-Effect Fire Vehicle (the ADAT (Air Defence, Anti-Tank missile system) on a LAV III Chasis). We are going to have one armoured regiment of two armoured squadrons, one AT squadron, and one arm'd recee sqn. The problem about introducing a tank or even retaining tanks is that it effectively rendered the home regt cbt ineffective. The maintenance pool must be deployed with the force. In the past, we had three pools with 3 arm'd regts (transformed into one single arm'd regt and two arm'd recee regts).


What ytpe of armor would you like to see in Canadian service?

What I like to see? Star Wars Imperial Walkers. It would be nice not to have to roll over a mine and just step over it. Lasers would be damned cool.

However, realistically and fitting within our budget. The M1s and "borrowing" the American garage when in theatre. This is assuming (and not an invalid one) that we will be serving alongside the Americans for a long time to come. Aside from that, the CHALLENGER and borrow a British garage when in theatre.


Would the Canadian PM have this occur? Or is the Parliament needed? (Does Canada have somehting along the lines of a War Powers Act) What is the political stance? Would Canada react instantaneously or wait and see international opinion?

Parliment has to be notified, not necessarily approval saved for the Declaration of War.

troung
28 Apr 05,, 02:37
You don't like it. I don't like it. However, it is the one piece of puzzle that we're missing in a combined arms operation, however much I hate the fact that we're using a donkey to do the job of a Porche. It's filled. Not good. But filled.

Yeah I knwo the role is now filled, but I actually wonder if they would even be deployed and used as gunships in a joint operation say with the UK and USA.

The most I could see would be a ticket punching to prove it works and leave the important armed helicopter roles to AH-64s from the USA/UK/Dutch.


To be honest, I'm not too comfortable with my birdbrains crapping near me. They've been hunting pigeons for far too long to change their menu to rats.

I don't want to sound like I am trashing the CF.

But the big problem with the CAF CF-18A/Bs was that after the cold war they fell far behind and lost the ability to really hunt pigeons. The weapons to conduct that have since become dated like the AIM-7M.

As for hunting rats they will need to go to the basics and through joint training we could bring them up to standard on killing rats regardless of the weather. With the LGBs and JDAMs (along with dumb things) they would be able to better support joint operations. Of course thta would require a chnage in the focus of their training.

But if anything we need the CF-18s more for killing rats then hunting pigeons. Pigeons the USAF would be cherry picking anyhow in time of war. Having them hunt pigeons is making them CAP over safe airspace and burn off fuel but hunting rats makes them usefull.


The Special Operations Group will be our initial response force. I'm not sure it will be the right force, essentially, turning the JTF II from Black Ops (A Squadron)/Green Ops (B Squadron) Force to an Airborne (Ranger) force. On taskings, I expect the light infantry battalions to flush out the numbers as required.

Will JTF-II be fleshed out to really take on a Rangerish role under this plan? They said enlarge but IIRC JTF-II has only 250 men they would need more numbers to keep doing what they do plus have a Ranger role. I would not want to break a spear by using it when one should use a hammer. And the Black Ops would have a different skill set (CT) then needed for line combat and would be wasted fighting a toe to toe battle when a LIB should be doing so. And the Green Ops are more like Green Berets. I could see copying what the UK is doing and forming a Ranger unit out of a line unit but not "downgrading" JTF-II into Rangers.

Officer of Engineers
28 Apr 05,, 17:17
Yeah I knwo the role is now filled, but I actually wonder if they would even be deployed and used as gunships in a joint operation say with the UK and USA.

The most I could see would be a ticket punching to prove it works and leave the important armed helicopter roles to AH-64s from the USA/UK/Dutch.

In coalition ops, the Griffens would most likely be tasked to the rear while other coalition assets be tasked up front.


I don't want to sound like I am trashing the CF.

As long as you remain legitimate in your points, I do not mind at all. In fact, I welcome it.


Will JTF-II be fleshed out to really take on a Rangerish role under this plan? They said enlarge but IIRC JTF-II has only 250 men they would need more numbers to keep doing what they do plus have a Ranger role.

I would not want to break a spear by using it when one should use a hammer. And the Black Ops would have a different skill set (CT) then needed for line combat and would be wasted fighting a toe to toe battle when a LIB should be doing so. And the Green Ops are more like Green Berets. I could see copying what the UK is doing and forming a Ranger unit out of a line unit but not "downgrading" JTF-II into Rangers.

JTF II is supposed to expand to 450, battalion strength. I don't have the info as to
how much expansion is black ops or green ops. I'm also not sure where they're getting the bodies as only Sergeants and up are qualified to join that unit. I know I would get mighty pissed if they keep stealing my good sgts away from me. Sgts that I spent time and effort in building.

We do have 3 jump coys in each of the 3 light inf bns. There has been alot of push to reform the Canadian Airborne Regiment and we are getting 5000 extra bodies.

However, I do remember all the problems with the CAR, sitting around doing nothing because they're so "elite" while the rest of the force got overstretched on deployments. When they were finally tasked with a mission, Somalia, they screwed that up royally.

troung
28 Apr 05,, 19:35
As long as you remain legitimate in your points, I do not mind at all. In fact, I welcome it.

Thanks and I hope I am remaining legitimate.


In coalition ops, the Griffens would most likely be tasked to the rear while other coalition assets be tasked up front.

Well the role for attack helicopters in the CAF would be filled. Yet when we get down to it they would probably do as much as Portugal's F-16s in Kosovo, burning up fuel on really useless patrols. Kind of just sending them for the sake of sending them.


JTF II is supposed to expand to 450, battalion strength. I don't have the info as to how much expansion is black ops or green ops. I'm also not sure where they're getting the bodies as only Sergeants and up are qualified to join that unit. I know I would get mighty pissed if they keep stealing my good sgts away from me. Sgts that I spent time and effort in building.

I wouldn't think it worthwhile the use Black or Green to be Rangers. Plus with the lowest ranking guys being sergeants you get very NCO heavy. I guess there would be a backlash to lose the best NCOs.


We do have 3 jump coys in each of the 3 light inf bns. There has been alot of push to reform the Canadian Airborne Regiment and we are getting 5000 extra bodies.However, I do remember all the problems with the CAR, sitting around doing nothing because they're so "elite" while the rest of the force got overstretched on deployments.

I guess those jump companies could be turned into a rapid responce Ranger unit and to support JTF-II field operations. Or at least the officers and NCOs used as a cadre to provide a group to be formed around.

Probably have to call the "Raiders" or "Commandos" as I think Canada has Rangers who patrol the north. Raiders might sound to "warlike" :rolleyes: . Britain is forming a Ranger unit out of leg infantry to support SAS operations and the Australian have done the same. Plus those would not be as NCO heavy as a Green unit turned into Rangers.


When they were finally tasked with a mission, Somalia, they screwed that up royally.

I have never gotten the whole story behind that.

dave angel
28 Apr 05,, 20:23
troung, i think the 'ranger' idea for 1PARA has been privately binned. 'they who must not be named' have been concerned for many years that 'they' are becoming part of the 'para mafia' and that previously more softly-softly tactics are being pushed aside for more aggressive, para-like tactics.

IIRC, 20 odd years ago about a third of the successful recruits to 'them' were from the PARA reg, the rest were signallers, engineers, other infantry, tankies, cooks and bottle washers. its now going towards the 65% mark and the senior management - deliberately non-para people - are getting very concerned about a change of ethos within the regiment and it affecting their ability to do certain tasks - the 'greyer' tasks rather than the 'greener' ones.

we think that the 'ranger' role has now been made into a roulement job as another btn has been discreetly slated for the role in 9 months or so.

TBH its a bit of a waste of a para btn anyway - guarding an airfield?

troung
28 Apr 05,, 21:10
troung, i think the 'ranger' idea for 1PARA has been privately binned. 'they who must not be named' have been concerned for many years that 'they' are becoming part of the 'para mafia' and that previously more softly-softly tactics are being pushed aside for more aggressive, para-like tactics.

I had thought it was supposed to be a non Para unit to become the "Rangers"?


we think that the 'ranger' role has now been made into a roulement job as another btn has been discreetly slated for the role in 9 months or so.

I had heard that part of it was to keep around a battalion which was to be "binned" and by making them into "Rangers" would keep them on the books.

And excellent post ;)

OT but what unit did you serve in?

Bill
28 Apr 05,, 23:18
http://img243.echo.cx/img243/1386/siguser19qy.gif

Damn, who did that?

On whose request? Do i have a fan club or something? :redface:

And WTF is up with the Druganov in the foreground?!?!?!?

Ack!

dave angel
28 Apr 05,, 23:41
troung,

scaleys and slime - the army grapevine...

the original idea was for 1PARA to be held in the SF support role on a permanent basis - come under DSF, in the SF budget etc... but there wouldn't be any saving of inf btns from the ones slated for disbandment.

'they' put the brakes on the plan, both for the 'mafia' reason and that any unit slated to support UKSF is going to become both a transit camp for aspirant SF folk and a dumping ground for those not progressing anywhere else. thats not a good way to run a battalion and it got an enormous amount of stick from within PARA reg who - rightly - see using a para btn as airport guards as a total waste of very valuable resources.

any infantry btn in the british army can support the SF and they do so regularly, it increases the breadth of knowledge and experience in the wider army and keeps a lid on the 'two armies' concept that PARA reg have been known to promote.

variety is the spice of life, what makes british infantry battalions so useful is that they can jump from police support in northern ireland to mountain warfare in afghanistan to peacekeeping in kosovo because they will have fullfilled similar roles within the operational memory of the battalion (20yrs or so), hiving off a battalion so it only does task X results in a stale battalion that says 'its not my job!'.

Officer of Engineers
29 Apr 05,, 00:22
http://img243.echo.cx/img243/1386/siguser19qy.gif

Damn, who did that?

On whose request? Do i have a fan club or something? :redface:

Accentix

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=5455

Officer of Engineers
29 Apr 05,, 02:20
I have never gotten the whole story behind that.

To be fair, the CAR did accomplish all its OBJ in theatre.


Report of the Somalia Commission of Inquiry (http://www.dnd.ca/somalia/somaliae.htm)EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

From its earliest moments the operation went awry. The soldiers, with
some notable exceptions, did their best. But ill-prepared and
rudderless, they fell inevitably into the mire that became the Somalia
debacle. As a result, a proud legacy was dishonoured.

Systems broke down and organizational discipline crumbled. Such
systemic or institutional faults cannot be divorced from leadership
responsibility, and the leadership errors in the Somalia mission were
manifold and fundamental: the systems in place were inadequate and
deeply flawed; practices that fuelled rampant careerism and placed
individual ambition ahead of the needs of the mission had become
entrenched; the oversight and supervision of crucial areas of
responsibility were deeply flawed and characterized by the most
superficial of assessments; even when troubling events and disturbing
accounts of indiscipline and thuggery were known, there was disturbing
inaction or the actions that were taken exacerbated and deepened the
problems; planning, training and overall preparations fell far short
of what was required; subordinates were held to standards of
accountability by which many of those above were not prepared to
abide. Our soldiers searched, often in vain, for leadership and
inspiration.

Many of the leaders called before us to discuss their roles in the
various phases of the deployment refused to acknowledge error. When
pressed, they blamed their subordinates who, in turn, cast
responsibility upon those below them. They assumed this posture
reluctantly - but there is no honour to be found here - only after
their initial claims, that the root of many of the most serious
problems resided with "a few bad apples", proved hollow.

We can only hope that Somalia represents the nadir of the fortunes of
the Canadian Forces. There seems to be little room to slide lower. One
thing is certain, however: left uncorrected, the problems that
surfaced in the desert in Somalia and in the boardrooms at National
Defence Headquarters will continue to spawn military ignominy. The
victim will be Canada and its international reputation.

The following is a summary of the final report of the Commission of
Inquiry into the Deployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia. To the best
of our ability, the report fulfils our obligation under various orders
in council to investigate the chain of command system, the leadership,
discipline, actions and decisions of the Canadian Forces, as well as
the actions and decisions of the Department of National Defence, in
respect of the Canadian Forces' participation in the United Nations
peacekeeping mission in Somalia in 1992-93.

During the deployment of Canadian troops, events transpired in Somalia
that impugned the reputations of individuals, Canada's military and,
indeed, the nation itself. Those events, some of them by now well
known to most Canadians, included the shooting of Somali intruders at
the Canadian compound in Belet Huen, the beating death of a teenager
in the custody of soldiers from 2 Commando of the Canadian Airborne
Regiment (CAR), an apparent suicide attempt by one of these Canadian
soldiers, and, after the mission, alleged episodes of withholding or
altering key information. Videotapes of repugnant hazing activities
involving members of the CAR also came to light. Some of these events,
with the protestations of a concerned military surgeon acting as a
catalyst, led the Government to call for this Inquiry. It is
significant that a military board of inquiry investigating the same
events was considered insufficient by the Government to meet Canadian
standards of public accountability, in part because the board of
inquiry was held in camera and with restricted terms of reference. A
full and open public inquiry was consequently established.

The principal conclusion of this Inquiry is that the mission went
badly wrong: systems broke down and organizational failure ensued. Our
Inquiry canvassed a broad array of issues and events and a massive
body of documentation and testimony to reach this unhappy
conclusion. Even then, in two major respects, we encountered
considerable difficulty in fulfilling our obligations.

First, the Inquiries Act provides the authority to subpoena witnesses,
hear testimony, hire expert counsel and advisers, and assess
evidence. Under normal circumstances, such powers should have given us
the confidence to present our findings without qualification. However,
on January 10,1997, while Parliament was adjourned, the Minister of
National Defence announced that Cabinet had decided that this Inquiry
had gone on long enough, that all hearings must be cut off on or about
March 31,1997, and that a report with recommendations was required by
June 30, 1997.

This was the response of the Government to our letter setting out
reporting date options and requesting an extension until at least
December 31, 1997, a period of time that would have allowed us to
conclude our search for the truth. That search had already involved,
among other things, thousands of hours of preparation and
cross-examination of the individuals who played various roles in the
Somalia deployment - and as time progressed, the superior officers to
whom they reported. As our investigation progressed, we were able to
move closer to the key centres of responsibility as we moved up the
chain of command. Unfortunately, the Minister's decision of January
10, 1997, eliminated any possibility of taking this course to its
logical conclusion and prevented us from fully expanding the focus to
senior officers throughout the chain of command who were responsible
before, during and after the Somalia mission.

The unexpected decision to impose a sudden time constraint on an
inquiry of this magnitude is without precedent in Canada. There is no
question that it has compromised and limited our search for the
truth. It will also inhibit and delay corrective action to the very
system that allowed the events to occur in the first place.

Second, the careful search for truth can be a painstaking and, at
times, frustrating experience. Public inquiries are equipped with the
best tools that our legal system can provide for pursuing the truth,
but even with access to significant procedural powers, answers may
prove elusive.

Even in those areas where we were able to conduct hearings - on the
pre-deployment phase of the mission and part of the in-theatre phase -
we were too often frustrated by the performance of witnesses whose
credibility must be questioned. The power to compel testimony was our
principal mechanism for determining what transpired in Somalia and at
National Defence Headquarters. Some 116 witnesses offered their
evidence to the Inquiry in open sessions broadcast on television
across Canada.

Giving testimony before a public inquiry is no trivial matter. It is a
test of personal and moral integrity that demands the courage to face
the facts and tell the truth. It also involves a readiness to be held
to account and a willingness to accept blame for one's own
wrongdoings. Many soldiers, noncommissioned officers, and officers
showed this kind of integrity. They demonstrated courage and fidelity
to duty, even when doing so meant acknowledging personal shortcoming
or voicing unwelcome criticism of their institution. We are cognizant
of institutional as well as peer pressure facing the witnesses who
appeared before us. These soldier-witnesses deserve society's respect
and gratitude for contributing in this way to the improvement of an
institution they obviously cherish.

However, we must also record with regret that on many occasions the
testimony of witnesses was characterized by inconsistency,
improbability, implausibility, evasiveness, selective recollection,
half- truths, and plain lies. Indeed, on some issues we encountered
what can only be described as a wall of silence. When several
witnesses behave in this manner, the wall of silence is evidently a
strategy of calculated deception.

Perhaps more troubling is the fact that many of the witnesses who
displayed these shortcomings were officers, non-commissioned officers,
and senior civil servants - individuals sworn to respect and promote
the values of leadership, courage, integrity, and accountability. For
these individuals, undue loyalty to a regiment or to the institution
of the military - or, even worse, naked self-interest - took
precedence over honesty and integrity. By conducting themselves in
this manner, these witnesses reneged on their duty to assist this
Inquiry in its endeavours. In the case of officers, this conduct
represents a breach of the undertakings set out in their commissioning
scroll.

Evasion and deception, which in our view were apparent with many of
the senior officers who testified before us, reveal much about the
poor state of leadership in our armed forces and the careerist
mentality that prevails at the Department of National Defence. These
senior people come from an elite group in which our soldiers and
Canadians generally are asked to place their trust and confidence.

We are well aware of recent reports submitted to the Minister of
National Defence addressing issues of leadership and management in the
Canadian Forces. Certainly, such studies and reports by informed
specialists are valuable. But only a full and rigorous public
examination of these issues, with the opportunity given to members of
the military to provide information and respond to criticism, can lead
to a thorough assessment of the scope and magnitude of these
problems. Only an extensive and probing analysis of the people,
events, and documentation involved can lead to focused and meaningful
change.

This Commission of Inquiry was established for that very purpose. Its
truncation leaves the Canadian public and the Canadian military with
many questions still unanswered. In fact, the decision to end the
Inquiry prematurely in itself raises new questions concerning
responsibility and accountability.

Although we have raised concerns about the credibility of witnesses
and leadership in the armed forces, it would be unfair to leave an
impression that the mission to Somalia was a total failure. While we
point out flaws in the system and shortfalls in leadership, we must
and wish to acknowledge that many soldiers and commanders performed
their duty with honour and integrity. Accordingly, we strongly support
the issuance of appropriate medals to those who served so well during
this troubled mission.

Moreover, we feel it is important in a report of this nature to
acknowledge the invaluable contribution that the Canadian Forces have
made, and continue to make, on Canada's behalf. Thousands of soldiers
have performed difficult and often dangerous tasks on our behalf in
pursuit of the nation's goals. Most often their dedication,
selflessness and professionalism have been taken for granted, because
these qualities have been assumed to be the norm. That is what made
the events involving Canadian Forces personnel in Somalia so
unpalatable. It is the sharp contrast between those events and the
accustomed performance of our military that elicited reactions of
alarm, outrage, and sadness among Canadians. In the end, we are
hopeful that our Inquiry will yield corrective measures to help
restore the Canadian Forces to the position of honour they have held
for so long.

Wraith601
30 Apr 05,, 09:17
Posted by Officer of Engineers

Two vehicles are replacing the role of the LEO C2s. The MGS and Multi-Effect Fire Vehicle (the ADAT (Air Defence, Anti-Tank missile system) on a LAV III Chasis). We are going to have one armoured regiment of two armoured squadrons, one AT squadron, and one arm'd recee sqn. The problem about introducing a tank or even retaining tanks is that it effectively rendered the home regt cbt ineffective. The maintenance pool must be deployed with the force. In the past, we had three pools with 3 arm'd regts (transformed into one single arm'd regt and two arm'd recee regts).

So this unit will have two companies with MGS, one with the ADAT carriers, and one with Coyotes? Also, how are Canada's existing LAV formations organized equipped at present? Will all the MGS vehicle be in the armored regimaent or will some be attached to the infantry brigades like in the SBCT?

2DREZQ
02 May 05,, 00:40
In a very general way, I've always thought that Canada, being relatively secure in its borders and coasts, would do well to invest in a larger navy. Multi-purpose ships, well defended against ASM & subs, with strong ASW capability. I'm talking about numerous ships. Canada could assume the role of "protector of the lanes of commerce" Yeah, sell us a lot of oil, and protect the tankers coming out of the gulf.
Not really a well informed opinion here, so don't be surprised if I seem a bit "out of the loop". (Besides I've been stuck AWAKE at work for 3 days, so I'm running on nothing but COFFEE!!!!)

Officer of Engineers
02 May 05,, 04:21
So this unit will have two companies with MGS, one with the ADAT carriers, and one with Coyotes?

And one TUA (TOW Under Armour) squadron manned by personnel from 1st and 2nd Battalions of the PPCLI. The Lord Strathcona Horse (Royal Canadians) will be the only armoured regiment in Canada.


Also, how are Canada's existing LAV formations organized equipped at present?

I'm assuming you mean the mech inf with the LAV III. 1st and 2nd Battalions of the Princess Patricia Canadian Light Infantry, the Royal Canadian Regiment, and the Royal 22e Regiment are all comprised of 4 rifle coys and 1 RHQ of 4 LAV III per platoon each.


Will all the MGS vehicle be in the armored regimaent or will some be attached to the infantry brigades like in the SBCT?

Troops (ie, platoons) and squadrons (ie, companies) will detached from the LdSH(RC) to deploying Task Forces (ie, reduced battle groups) as needed.

AutopilotOFF
04 May 05,, 23:21
For all those interested. Saw this on the army.ca boards that I read sometimes.

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=31a9fa57-81f0-402c-b870-d8652ef4a051


Ten years after the Canadian Airborne Regiment was disbanded, the army is creating a strike force of fast-moving, highly trained "ranger" troops that will reprise most of the former elite parachute unit's roles, senior army officers have told the National Post.

The planned Light Force will be able to airdrop into trouble spots around the world on its own or as a backup to the commandos of Joint Task Force 2, Canada's secretive special forces unit.

The Light Force, developed in tandem with the defence policy statement released last month, will form the backbone of a new Special Operations Group, which defence planners foresee as the future "911 Force" for military missions abroad or at home.

Lieutenant-Colonel Dave Galea said the new force will be based on the three existing light infantry battalions -- units of about 600 soldiers with light weapons and equipment and almost no vehicles.

"The aim is for the Light Force not to become special forces themselves, but to be trained to support special forces such as JTF-2," he said. "The supporting groups would not need to be trained to the same abilities.

"They will be tactically deployable by air ... by helicopter or in parachute operations."

Lt.-Col. Galea said the new force will be similar to the Canadian Airborne Regiment, disbanded in 1995 after a series of incidents arising from the ill-fated 1992-93 mission in Somalia.

"There are certainly comparisons you could draw, but I don't think what we're talking about is exactly the same," he said. "The parachuting would be limited in scope, parachuting into a permissive environment. So it's parachute operations as opposed to airborne operations."

"But a comparison you could draw to the Airborne Regiment is [that] we're talking about a high-readiness and rapidly deployable force."

Each of the existing battalions includes a "jump" company of 150 paratroopers -- the remnants of the former Canadian Airborne Regiment -- but Lt.-Col. Galea said it has not yet been decided whether the new force will be consolidated into one regiment or brigade. "It's too soon to tell," he said. "We're going to do an estimate on how best to achieve that concept. There are all sorts of ways to skin the same cat."

Dr. Sean Maloney, a professor at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ont., who specializes in the modern military, said the planned force could be a valuable addition to any Canadian Forces operation overseas.

"These guys will be the pointy end of our strategic rapid-reaction force, which hearkens back to the original role of the old Airborne Regiment," he said.

While JTF-2 commandos perform small-scale, specialized raids, the new force will give them the bulk to do their jobs more effectively, Dr. Maloney said.

"JTF-2 does very precise, surgical operations.... This force will be there to secure the area so they can do their job and move on."

He said the only possible drawback to the planned force is the chance Ottawa may be reluctant to use it for the potentially risky operations for which the soldiers will be trained.

"Once we have this thing, the question is will the government have the inclination to use it," Dr. Maloney said. "I think we should use it. We should get on with it because we're needed out there."

Lt.-Col. Galea said the new force will fill the same role as the U.S. Army's Ranger battalions or the British parachute regiments.

"But they'll also be able to conduct more traditional infantry-type operations," he added. "We're not looking to overly specialize these guys."

The force should be brought into being over the next five years, Lt.-Col. Galea said. "The plan is to take this in steps ... but we'll find a way to make it happen."

The Light Force arose out of the defence policy statement released last month, which called for troops "capable of integrating with Joint Task Force 2 elements" and acting as pathfinders for larger missions -- the first troops on the ground in a new area.

The defence policy committed the Canadian Forces to increasing the size of JTF-2 and its supporting elements as part of the Special Operations Group, a formation that would include JTF-2, a nuclear, biological and chemical defence company based in Trenton, Ont., and the new Light Force.

The Special Operations Group would also include naval and air force elements to transport troops and give them fire support.



Thoughts?

troung
04 May 05,, 23:31
I wonder how the backup thing would play out....

AutopilotOFF
04 May 05,, 23:43
If you are thinking about the backup for JTF2, I see it like this. JTF 2 are counter terrorist experts, highly trained in CT and hostage rescue. However, if operating on foreign soil or deep within enemy lines, it would be good to have this more sizeable force to offer any assistance required.

No matter how good a soldier, they could always use back-up. IMO.

troung
05 May 05,, 00:51
That is basically keeping them on strip alert. Like a Hatchet Force.

Like in Afghanistan and while Delta was trying to kill Mullah Omar the Rangers took temporary control of Kandahar AFB to provide a safe way to "get out of dodge" if problems came up.

If the unit does get formed they would likely take on such Ranger roles as raids, airbase taking/raiding as well as strip alert IA missions. I don't doubt they would also have to do "mundane" things like peacekeeping to justify keeping such a unit around.

I could not see the Canadians keeping such a expensive unit only to provide a rescue force for JTF-2 units. And I doubt the unit if it gets off the ground is going to want to hang onto airbases and play body guard either...

Officer of Engineers
05 May 05,, 02:00
Every now and then, people try to resurrect the CAR and it's not going to happen, even with the new SOG which requires a standby force of at least coy strength. You can do it with the three light inf bns. You can even do it with the CAR but you cannot deploy the CAR and keep a standby force at the same time, which means that you would form a RHQ for nothing and again the old complaints of the CAR being all prettied up with no dance to goto would surface again.

AutopilotOFF
05 May 05,, 16:58
I just hope the government starts to take the CF more seriously, or they may lose out on any future recruits like myself.

troung
06 May 05,, 04:57
Every now and then, people try to resurrect the CAR and it's not going to happen, even with the new SOG which requires a standby force of at least coy strength. You can do it with the three light inf bns. You can even do it with the CAR but you cannot deploy the CAR and keep a standby force at the same time, which means that you would form a RHQ for nothing and again the old complaints of the CAR being all prettied up with no dance to goto would surface again.

The problem is where to send them. If they do "mundane" missions like peacekeeping then really they would be "wasted" doing something a normal battalion can do just as well. And if they sit around waiting for a major shooting action do play SF "babysitters" then they will sit around and suck up money doing nothing.

Catch 22...

Officer of Engineers
06 May 05,, 13:16
The problem is where to send them. If they do "mundane" missions like peacekeeping then really they would be "wasted" doing something a normal battalion can do just as well. And if they sit around waiting for a major shooting action do play SF "babysitters" then they will sit around and suck up money doing nothing.

Catch 22...

We actually do use SOF quite a bit in peacekeeping, especially during the initial entry phase. Although not the bn lvl. One or two bricks is the norm and since we have not established proper FOPs, they are our only eyes and ears while we're getting set up.

The SOG aims to give immediate punch to any deployment and not wait for the 2-3 weeks that would take a force to setup in theatre. The SOG would withdraw once the SCTF, later the MSTF, achieves operational status in theatre.