Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Question - What do Americans want of the CF?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Question - What do Americans want of the CF?

    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.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 16 Dec 04,, 17:44.

  • #2
    "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. ;)

    Comment


    • #3
      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
      Last edited by dalem; 16 Dec 04,, 19:30.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by M21Sniper
        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.

        Originally posted by M21Sniper
        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by dalem
          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.

          Originally posted by dalem
          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.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
            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

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                Logistics would be nice.

                Comment


                • #9
                  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?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I don't think I have any problems with the CF.
                    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                    I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
                      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

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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!


                        "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                        I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                        HAKUNA MATATA

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ray
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Blademaster
                              Canada should get like around 18 C-17s.
                              Not cost-effective. The Russians do a better job.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X