troung

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 . 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

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.

__________________
Chimo

Franco Lolan

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?

Anon

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

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?

Wraith601

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

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

dalem

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

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

Officer of Engineers

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

It's 2 million dollars a day to operate.

troung

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

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

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

troung

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....

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 . 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...

Officer of Engineers

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.

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

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

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.