dave angel

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

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.

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

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.

Probably longer then I have been alive

I know I was just messing around.

Looks like a bigger role for Canadian Special Forces units.

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.

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

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

dave angel

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

__________________
Chimo

troung

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

Thanks and I hope I am remaining legitimate.

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.

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.

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" . 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.

I have never gotten the whole story behind that.

dave angel

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

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

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?

Anon

Damn, who did that?

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

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

Ack!

dave angel

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

Accentix

Hey

Officer of Engineers

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