# 25000 new sailors, soldiers, airmen and airwomen?



## vonGarvin (2 May 2006)

So says the CTV news.  Is this realistic?  Over what time frame?  Has anyone heard anything other than that 1.x Billion this year?  (Let's hope it's procurement and NOT another pay raise, though if they raise my pay, I won't complain)


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (2 May 2006)

Link?
P.S.  if its short term we don't have the necessary staff to train all of them and carry on with our current deployments.


----------



## vonGarvin (2 May 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> Link?
> P.S.  if its short term we don't have the necessary staff to train all of them and carry on with our current deployments.


Sorry, I can't find the hyperlink to my television set 

I looked for it on http://www.ctv.ca , but couldn't find it.


----------



## vonGarvin (2 May 2006)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060502/budget_military_060502/20060502?s_name=budget2006
Here's a link.
From that source 
"To recruit 13,000 new, full-time soldiers and another 10,000 reservists. 
Buy equipment to support a multi-role, combat-capable maritime, land and air force. 
Expand training for the new recruits as well as transforming military operations and administration. 
Increase investment in soldiers' housing and base infrastructure. 
Increase the Forces' capacity to protect the security and sovereignty of Canada's Arctic. 
Restore the army presence in British Columbia. 
Initiate the establishment of territorial battalions."

Nowhere does it say "pay"


----------



## mcchartman (2 May 2006)

Sounds like this is my chance to get on the train! I do hope they don't lower the enrolment standards in order to fill these positions though (not after so much effort to get in shape, no sir). Heh, I can still hear my parents questioning me on why exactly I was so supportive of the conservative party in the past elections! I do remember that the Liberals had promised another 5,000 regular troops (although I wouldn't be able to quote the source) but that is still not half as much as the present government is promising.


----------



## orange.paint (2 May 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> http.
> Restore the army presence in British Columbia.



always blows my mind the ammount of newfoundlanders in the army yet no one ever thinks to put a base there!Want numbers?Put a regular force unit in newfoundland....it would be HUGE!
As I say still sitting at my desk...if only this desk was in newfoundland!


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 May 2006)

rcac_011: The Conservatives promised a battalion in Goose Bay.
http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1091/39090

Two stories on the (to me disappointing) budget:

1) "Defence: Troops get a pittance"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060502.wmilitary0502/BNStory/budget2006/home

2) "Budget bolsters defence spending" (headline is economical with the truth)
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/features/budget2006/story.html?id=521edd39-01be-4574-b342-f1bb4bca1aba&k=27141

Actual budget text (scroll down):
http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget06/bp/bpc3de.htm#defence

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (2 May 2006)

Regular Army presence in BC. I kept looking for something to see what they have in mind with that...couldn't find anything.
anyone know the plan??

Re-open Chilliwack?? (he said hopefully)
Re-open Work Point??
New location??

It was a travesty when the Liberals canned Chilliwack...most of the infrastructure is still there...it could be re-opened I think.....what do others think?

(did my basic there 7708...another lifetime... another trade)


----------



## FSTO (2 May 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Regular Army presence in BC. I kept looking for something to see what they have in mind with that...couldn't find anything.
> anyone know the plan??
> 
> Re-open Chilliwack?? (he said hopefully)
> ...



Chilliwack is the most likely. There is still a small CF presence there and it could be easily reactivated.

Work Point? Sorry that is now the Naval Officer Training Centre and besides we have enough problems with the Navy getting time on Heals Range and Bentinick Island let alone the Army.

New Location? Comox? Elsewhere in the lower mainland? The biggest problem is finding land for the Army to train on.


----------



## Docherty (2 May 2006)

I do not think Chilliwack would re-open.  The RCMP owns all the land on the south side of the base which is now the RCMP Pac. Region Trg. Centre, and on the north side where the PMQs use to be, are now on the civi market.


----------



## Greywolf (2 May 2006)

23000 recruits over 5 years?  I find that hard to believe.  With the recruitment processing taking so long, I doubt they can process that many people.  Funding might solve some problems, but not all and I don't think it's going to make the processing much faster.


----------



## Long in the tooth (2 May 2006)

25,000 does not even take into account the attrition NDHQ is not expecting.  There are all kinds of us on IPS now (15,000?) who may have signed on to 55 but will leave long before that.  Look for signing bonuses for new recruits that will piss off the long service members like crazy; let's face it, with a huge shortage on civy street the competition for younger people will be intense.

"When the going gets wierd, the wierd turn pro" - Hunter S. Thompson


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 May 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO:

What the Conservative said about the Army in B.C.--silly in my view:

'Restoring a regular army presence in British Columbia with a new rapid reaction army battalion of 650 regular force personnel, that will be air deployable, to be stationed at CFB Comox...'
http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1091/36893

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## orange.paint (2 May 2006)

Looks like a OT to infantry may be in the works....I wonder what kind of mess theis territorial army is going to be.Who the heck is going to man the 100 reg jobs there with all these new batallions?


----------



## FSTO (2 May 2006)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> IN HOC SIGNO:
> 
> What the Conservative said about the Army in B.C.--silly in my view:
> 
> ...



When the major earthquake hits the BC south coast, I doubt that the Navy will be able to muster the number of folks to fully man the Aide to Civil Power. Therefore there must be an Army presence and either we have them in Chilliwack or we have to have the ability to quickly transport them from Edmonton. (the C-17?) Abbotsford would be the obvious place to set up the FOB or Victoria if the airport in Saanich is still operational. (Boy wouldn't the Amphib ship be useful for a domestic Op).

Mark, you have had nothing good to say about the conservatives since they came into office. What did you want to see in the budget regarding the military to make you happy?


----------



## wongskc (2 May 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> Initiate the establishment of territorial battalions.



Territorial army?   ???  What does that mean?


----------



## Kirkhill (2 May 2006)

> The cost of major capital equipment is spread over its life, so the annual budgetary amounts include only a portion of the full capital cost. As was the case with the budgetary increases provided last year, the full cost of capital acquisitions will be provided on a cash basis in the years they are acquired.



This comment looks interesting.  I asked once before when the Conservatives announced their platform during the election and this statement was included, if this was new or the way things are done now.

Let's suppose that the Tories want to buy the C-17s that the Liberals said were too expensive.   The Liberals could have taken the 160 MUSD price (75 cents on the dollar), added offsets and IRBs to pump up the number, then dumped the entire amount onto DND's lap to be paid out during the two year delivery period. In addition the project would be priced with Duey's infamous 3:1 life-cycle cost presenting a still larger number to the public and thus justifying doing little or nothing.  In addition DND would have the acquisition value deducted from their budget during the delivery period, say 2 years for 6 aircraft.  Thus the budget would be down a 160*6/2=480 MUSD per year.  Make that 640 MCAD per year for 2 years.

With the plan as laid out by the Tories, as I understand it, the government would buy the aircraft outright during the delivery period but would then deduct the cost from DND's budget over the life of the aircraft, lets say 25 years.  For 6 aircraft 160*6 = 960 MUSD (same price - perhaps at par) but DND would be charged 960/25, or 38.4 MUSD per year for 25 years.  

DND ends up putting out the same amount of money (maybe a bit less because of the exchange rate - government policies influence that as well) but the impact on the budget is less in any given year.  This also allows DND to buy now and pay back the Treasury over time from its budget.

By not including offsets, IRBs and lifecycle costs in the capital projects then the Conservatives can buy stuff at prices that are "apparently" lower than the prices the Liberals were quoting.

Blackshirt's 80 MUSD Svalbard Icebreaker with a 20 year life would only net out at 4 MUSD per year for each budget year.  Cheap like borscht.

Training and Maintenance budget would be separate as would Ops.  And the international ops budget would be an extraordinary item and not actually part of the Defence budget.

If I were trying to be all things to all people anyway............

Cheers.


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 May 2006)

FSTO: While the Conservatives could not be worse than the Liberals I just look for some intelligent policy and some real money.  Neither yet.

In the budget?  Some money for some equipment for some service.

See: "What will be in the budget?"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/05/what-will-be-in-budget_02.html

We have a son (pilot) in the Air Force which may lead to a certain service bias on my part.  As far as I can tell--as a civilian, though I hope informed by my own life-long interest and reading, nothing untoward from our son--this is the best CF site of this sort on which to discuss the issues.

Just wanting the best,

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## FSTO (3 May 2006)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> FSTO: While the Conservatives could not be worse than the Liberals I just look for some intelligent policy and some real money.  Neither yet.
> 
> In the budget?  Some money for some equipment for some service.
> 
> ...


Fair enough, but please remember that during the election, the conservatives would not (somebody from NDHQ please correct me if I'm wrong) be able to get direct advice from DND to make a Defence election platform. Therefore they rely on advice from retired DND pers who may have the best intentions but their intel is very time late. That is probably why you see the confrontation (media drivin IMO) between O'Conner and Hillier. Now that they are in Government, their intel is now more time relevent and a few things (Deep water port, RR Battalions all over the place) have somewhat fallen off the radar screen. So I feel that there will be some more fleshing out of the capital purchase program over the next while. Also the money is there, for example at the end of this past fiscal year we had the usual March Madness to spend our budget but the one thing that never happened was the claw back in November followed by the flood of cash in March. This year we have been told that there will be no claw-back and we can plan to spend throughout the fiscal year.

As for equipment, I can see the 4-6 C-17's plus a FWSAR and some new C-130J. With the C-17 we can move large loads quickly to Oman to flown the rest of the way by Hercs, saving both hrs and trips on both planes. Is your son Fast Air or a Bus jockey? cause ask any of us who have flown a Herc from coast to coast (I have only flown in one from Montreal to Halifax and that was long enough) it is not a pleasent trip.

The Army? I am not qualified to comment.

The Navy? 
JSS (4 min-2 on each coast)
Ampib Ship (no, the JSS and Hillier's BHS are NOT the same thing)
Frigate Update
Replace the 280's
Mid-life refit on MCDV
Cyclone's (These should be completly taken over by the Navy, they are a Navy asset after all)
Update the CP 140 (see my comment from above)

Above all get the 23,000 ( which means 69,000 people actually signed up because it take a 3-1 ratio to go from sign-up to QL3 Qualified)
If that means that we have to take a bunch of of just retired folks and give them a Class B or C reserve contract and make them full time instructors until the bubble is through.

There, Don's unscolicited advice for the day.


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 May 2006)

FSTO:



> a few things (Deep water port, RR Battalions all over the place) have somewhat fallen off the radar screen



Maybe not.  From the Ottawa Sun today:
http://www.ottawasun.com/News/National/2006/05/03/1561626-sun.html

' The Canadian military has added Ottawa to a list of cities that could be home to one of the new territorial battalions the Tories said they would create with new defence spending outlined in yesterday's budget.

The Harper government is considering 12 cities as possible bases for these new battalions. They will be responsible for responding to domestic terrorist threats and natural disasters, like floods...

Other cities on the original list include Vancouver, Calgary, Regina and Winnipeg.

While the project is still in its planning stages, the official said the battalions will draw primarily from reservists through a major reorganization of the reserves...'

And then there are those pesky campaign promises to put battalions (regular, one presumes) in Goose Bay, Bagotville, Trenton and Comox.

Your equipment list looks good to me.  On the JSS, the Fraser Institute in this August 2005 paper makes a good argument that it be scaled back mainly to replenishment and that more amphibious ships could be bought--both types abroad to save time and money (but all Canadian governments love to spend ship money here).

"The Need for Canadian Strategic Lift" (both air and sea)
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/CanadianStrategicLift.pdf

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## FSTO (3 May 2006)

Just to clarify, JSS role will be mainly (95%) fleet support and replenishment, classic AOR. It will have a modest heavy lift capability (Ro-Ro with no well deck) and capable of having the space to house a Joint HQ.
The general's BHS (Big Honking Ship) will be the Amphib ship.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (3 May 2006)

With all the new troops the Tories plan on recruiting, I hope they don't lower the bar even further with regards to training/fitness standards.


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 May 2006)

National Defence Minister O'Connor radio interview, Thursday: the Minister will be on CFRA, Ottawa, "Madely in the Morning" sometime between 0700-0900.  Should be interesting as Madely has been critical of the lack of specifics on new equipment for the CF in the budget--and has a pretty good knowledge of things military.

Listen live at:
http://www.cfra.com/headlines/index.asp

If you miss it you should be able hear it later at "CFRA Interviews"
http://www.cfra.com/interviews/index.asp

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## TMM (3 May 2006)

Where will these new recruits magically appear from? My company employs co-op students and a military career is something that most students don't consider. There is a big disconnect between education and military, as in they have no idea that you can get a degree, diploma or trade in the CF, that there is a lot more than just guns and tanks. Unfortunately it seems nothing has changed from when I was in school.

I don't think that the targets can be achieved solely via recruiting young 'uns, which means having to entice people from civy street. Money works for that, but then you have the problem of people who join more for the cash not the career.

I'm interested in more had facts about the territorial battalions; wonder if it will it be like the UK system of the TA?


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 May 2006)

TAA: ' The Canadian military has added Ottawa to a list of cities that could be home to one of the new territorial battalions the Tories said they would create with new defence spending outlined in yesterday's budget.

The Harper government is considering 12 cities as possible bases for these new battalions. They will be responsible for responding to domestic terrorist threats and natural disasters, like floods...

While the project is still in its planning stages, the official said the battalions will draw primarily from reservists through a major reorganization of the reserves...'
http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2006/05/03/1561626-sun.html

And an optimistic story, "Defence spending a boon for Maritimes":
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/501082.html?source=somnia

Excerpts:

'"It’s not heaps of cash," one naval officer said of the new defence budget...

As part of a long shopping list, the military is looking at a mix of heavy, strategic lift aircraft, such as the giant C-17, along with lighter, tactical transports along the lines of the new C-130-J to replace Canada’s aging Hercules transport planes.

The Hercules is the military’s workhorse and its primary means of heavy air transport. But most of them were built in the 1960s.

"The numbers I’ve heard kicked around were four C-17s and 16 C-130-Js," the officer said. "You need the long-haul aircraft like the C-17 that can go fast with a really big load."

He suspects this budget will nix talk of scaling down the navy’s project to spend $2.1 billion on a joint support ship — a combination troop and supply vessel.

"This will probably mean the JSS will get the approval and the funding," said the officer.

The navy is also considering acquiring an amphibious assault ship that can carry big helicopters and put troops ashore in the world’s hot spots. This budget does provide enough money to fund that in years to come, he said.

"There’s a couple of interesting commercial options to lease [??] in the short-term while a proper ship is being built," said the naval officer.'

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (3 May 2006)

Territorial Battalions/Army...sounds very "British"...isn't that what they call their Militia/Army Res??????


----------



## mdh (3 May 2006)

> While the project is still in its planning stages, the official said the battalions will draw primarily from reservists through a major reorganization of the reserves...'



This makes me think that the militia might be re-cast as a kind of "National Guard" for Canada which would fit the Tory concept of "urban" battalions ready to provide aid to the civil power; the British TA system is really not that different from our current reserve system.  It's all speculation at this point but we live in interesting times.   ???


----------



## Cloud Cover (3 May 2006)

Gotta tell ya', as much as the military needs the extra manpower, right now I'd rather see an extra 10-20,000 regular full time cops on the streets [and not in cutely named specialist positions.] 1000 RCMP does not even begin to address the problems.


----------



## Lancaster (3 May 2006)

Defence minister 'O' Connor was on today with 'politics with Don  Newman', he didn't want talk details but the 13,000 fulltime and  10,000 reservists will take about  5 years to fulfill .He also said in a months time that the cabinet would approve the defence priorities of 6 to 8  capital projects , money approved from other years, the arctic ships in 5 year plan. If anyone else saw the program , please correct me.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 May 2006)

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/

Go to the Wednesday PM broadcast and click on it O'Connor is first on the broadcast.

Lancaster is correct.  O'Connor confirms 6-8 capital projects funded on the accrual system ready for immediate approval this year.  That includes airlift.  That means take all the projects you are interested in, add up the price tags and then divide by the life expectancy of the system. 20-40 years for ships and aircraft?  5-10 years for trucks?  A week and a half for radios and computers?

The Cyclones are still go with delivery commencing 2008.   The icebreakers are still go but not this year,  some time in the next 5 years, and he is calling for the price to be lower than anticipated.  Blackshirt and Ex-Dragoon may get their "Svalbard" yet.

Also O'Connor confirms that Afghanistan will be funded out or general revenues and not the Defence Budget.

Edit: PS the extra bodies will be fed in over at least 5 years.


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 May 2006)

Minister O'Connor's CFRA interview, May 4 (starts with NORAD renewal). Here's hoping.
http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/Gordon_Oconnor_May04.mp3

Minister O'Connor said he has 6-8 projects for which there is financing and he will be going to Cabinet for approvals through the year. The four airlift projects (strategic, tactical, fixed-wing SAR/light tactical, helicopters) are the priority. No mention specifically of joint support ships or amphibious ship but they presumably are in the 6-8.

Territorial battalions in major cities will go ahead. No mention of the silly campaign promises to put (now non-existent) regular Army battalions in Goose Bay, Bagotville, Trenton and Comox.

Navy icebreakers are "a few years out". Thank goodness--get them for the Coast Guard and sooner.

Pretty much along the lines of the "Politcs" interview, and this story.
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=bd8e102a-25f6-48e5-8da2-99727a6a8715&k=86035

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill (4 May 2006)

'S Funny about the silly Newfoundland and BC battalions - strangely enough they don't seem to sound funny to folks in Newfoundland and BC.  People from those provinces may quibble about the exact location but they don't seem to have a problem with having a military force in their province.  As some Newfoundlanders have pointed out they seem to supply a significant chunk of the manpower of the CF - perhaps they might appreciate having a posting closer to home.  After all Alberta already gets its fair share of by's heading for Fort McMurray.

I won't argue Ontario and Quebec battalions - They are already well covered.  

Also - just to note - we also disagree on the Naval Icebreakers.  

Both subjects are well discussed on other threads.

Cheers.


----------



## Long in the tooth (4 May 2006)

I think the Terrs is an attempt to rationalize the Militia, a long overdue exercise.  134 Militia units should be scaled down to about 50 geographically based units with a Reg F (not 10/90 crap) backbone.  Of course there is a reqr for a unit in Victoria, 3 VP was it.  Now do we wait for reservists to show up who may have very important jobs supporting fire, police and power infrastrusture?  The time these valuable pers are most needed to stabalize a situation they will already be committed in the civilian world.  

This is a major rethink.  The units that won major battle honours may have to be amalgamated; Montreal and Toronto may end up with only 3 or 4 units (vice 9 or 11) in order to organize properly. If the 'Terrs' are to be effective then the support elements need to need driven as well.....

With the transformation of the CF this may gain some traction, but I suspect the Honorouraries will weigh in on this to defend their units honour.

I've got my bee kit on with epi pens ready.


----------



## chrisf (7 May 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> always blows my mind the ammount of newfoundlanders in the army yet no one ever thinks to put a base there!Want numbers?Put a regular force unit in newfoundland....it would be HUGE!
> As I say still sitting at my desk...if only this desk was in newfoundland!



CFB Goosebay, CFB Gander and CFS St. John's not good enough?


----------



## Black Watch (8 May 2006)

Re-Open St-Hubert!!!


----------

