# The Dark Years before the Years of Darkness - Are we facing worse times?



## George Wallace (7 Dec 2013)

From the History files:

For the Cold Warriors out there, you may remember the 1980's.  Here are two old CBC reports on Canada's military commitment to NATO.  They are a good review of the situation in the years (1980's) before the Years of Darkness in the 1990's.  For a change the CBC is quite damning of the neglect that the Government has done to the military.

Part I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_XYb3AWK58
Part II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hha91X0cojI

Today, we can witness even more serious problems than those faced in the 1980's and 90's.  Old lessons NOT learned.








Sidebar:  Please don't laugh too hard at the hairstyles.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Dec 2013)

The decade*s* of darkness included the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s and extended into the early 2000s. They began in the mid 60s. Those who think that only the 1990s were the decade of darkness are seriously ill informed and lack meaningful experience with defence policy ... and yes, I'm talking about some retired generals, too.

Our commitment to NATO was vital in the 1950s and '60s ... it declined, towards the point of meaninglessness, by the 1980s. But, so did the need ... by the 1980s we were in Europe because it was the going price for a seat at the table, not because anyone with the brains the gods gave to green peppers thought the Russians were coming.

Our commitment to NATO was always and entirely _strategic_, the military component was secondary ~ the Canadian Forces _symbolized_ a national _promise_ to the West, but the promise, itself, was wholly political in nature.

The decline in public support for the military, which began around 1960, is *why* successive governments, Conservative and Liberal, alike, starved and still starve the CF ~ that's what the country wanted and that's what it still wants.


----------



## Rifleman62 (7 Dec 2013)

If it was dark for the Reg F, the Militia suffered even more so. If budgets must be cut, the Militia is always a big target. 

We had big units in the 60's , then a continuous downhill avalanche. 

I remember the pencils/ruler markings etc.


----------



## chrisf (7 Dec 2013)

The oil industry is hiring... comes with an extra 0 on your pay cheque.


----------



## YZT580 (7 Dec 2013)

I truly believe that most Canadians support the military or rather, they would support the military if they had the chance.  Unfortunately, the general population are never given the chance.  When was the last time that a reasonable justification was printed or aired for general understanding.  It doesn't happen.  What is published is bouncing a sub off the ocean floor, not 50,000 litres per day of water being manufactured in East Asia.  None of the Toronto papers has given any followup to the DART mission so people just don't know.  What they publish is the F35 fiasco or the increased costs for the ship acquisition programme.  The only cities that carry good news are Halifax and Victoria.  The current 2nd and 3rd parties in parliament hate anything in a uniform (including the Salvation Army).  The press never miss an opportunity to come down hard on any government that even suggests spending money on 'war' when there are polar bears to save from drowning.  Military spending, unfortunately, is a large and vulnerable target and it looks good.  But don't think Canadians are against anything military.  We aren't.  Just witness the spontaneous response on the 401 after a ramp ceremony!


----------



## GR66 (7 Dec 2013)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> I truly believe that most Canadians support the military or rather, they would support the military if they had the chance.  Unfortunately, the general population are never given the chance.  When was the last time that a reasonable justification was printed or aired for general understanding.  It doesn't happen.  What is published is bouncing a sub off the ocean floor, not 50,000 litres per day of water being manufactured in East Asia.  None of the Toronto papers has given any followup to the DART mission so people just don't know.  What they publish is the F35 fiasco or the increased costs for the ship acquisition programme.  The only cities that carry good news are Halifax and Victoria.  The current 2nd and 3rd parties in parliament hate anything in a uniform (including the Salvation Army).  The press never miss an opportunity to come down hard on any government that even suggests spending money on 'war' when there are polar bears to save from drowning.  Military spending, unfortunately, is a large and vulnerable target and it looks good.  But don't think Canadians are against anything military.  We aren't.  Just witness the spontaneous response on the 401 after a ramp ceremony!



Frankly DART producing water is NOT a military story...it's a foreign aid story and to be honest it could probably be supplied cheaper by a non-military organization.  Submarines bumping off the ocean floor and expensive fighter jets however ARE a military story.  The fundamental problem is that nobody is selling a story of WHY we need expensive submarines and fighters so their very existence can become a target of negative reporting.  

Paint the Canadian public a realistic picture of the world we live in.  Develop a comprehensive foreign policy that also clearly explains how and why effective military forces are required to support that policy and then maybe the Canadian tax payer will stand behind the expense of an effective military.  Until that happens be prepared to face deep cuts every time the economy suffers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Dec 2013)

:goodpost:

You're quite right.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Dec 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The decade*s* of darkness included the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s and extended into the early 2000s. They began in the mid 60s. Those who think that only the 1990s were the decade of darkness are seriously ill informed and lack meaningful experience with defence policy ... and yes, I'm talking about some retired generals, too.
> 
> Our commitment to NATO was vital in the 1950s and '60s ... it declined, towards the point of meaninglessness, by the 1980s. But, so did the need ... by the 1980s we were in Europe because it was the going price for a seat at the table, not because anyone with the brains the gods gave to green peppers thought the Russians were coming.
> 
> ...



Quite agree.  It seems that every military purchase by the Canadian Government since the Korean War amounted to half of what was to be replaced.  We gradually watched our three Services whittled away.  My father was in the RCAF and posted to 1 (F) Wing in Marville, France.  We had four operational RCAF Fighter Wings in Europe in 1950's to 1960's, and a Air Division Headquarters in Metz.  Since then we have gradually seen the RCAF slashed to where we less aircraft in Canada today, than we had in Europe five decades ago.  We have seen Canada go from the third largest Navy in the world at the end of WW II to one of the smallest.  With Unification, we saw many Regular and Reserve Army units disappear.   The trend has always seemed to be to replace what we have with half that number when purchasing new equipment.  

Cuts to infrastructure and OEM have lead to facilities and equipment not being kept in repair, which incurs even more expense, and the cycle goes on.  

Technology advancements over the years have increased the costs of doing business.  Keeping up in the 'Arms Race' is not cheap.  Equipping a military on the cheap is not a truly viable solution if one wants to maintain a status quo on the world stage.


----------



## MilEME09 (7 Dec 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Quite agree.  It seems that every military purchase by the Canadian Government since the Korean War amounted to half of what was to be replaced.  We gradually watched our three Services whittled away.  My father was in the RCAF and posted to 1 (F) Wing in Marville, France.  We had four operational RCAF Fighter Wings in Europe in 1950's to 1960's, and a Air Division Headquarters in Metz.  Since then we have gradually seen the RCAF slashed to where we less aircraft in Canada today, than we had in Europe five decades ago.  We have seen Canada go from the third largest Navy in the world at the end of WW II to one of the smallest.  With Unification, we saw many Regular and Reserve Army units disappear.   The trend has always seemed to be to replace what we have with half that number when purchasing new equipment.
> 
> Cuts to infrastructure and OEM have lead to facilities and equipment not being kept in repair, which incurs even more expense, and the cycle goes on.
> 
> Technology advancements over the years have increased the costs of doing business.  Keeping up in the 'Arms Race' is not cheap.  Equipping a military on the cheap is not a truly viable solution if one wants to maintain a status quo on the world stage.



unfortunately its a trend that is continuing back in the 70's/80's we had what 24 destroyers I think that CBC report said, we now have 3 destroyers and 12 frigates. Now it seems due to lack of funds the navy will end up with even less ships (though the project is in the early stages and really we probably would need to wait for the next federal budget to get an updated cost). Look at the Leopard 2's we can't even 1 for 1 replace the C2's. With less and less coming with each purchase eventually DND will have to draw the line, because technological advances doesn't mean you can do more with less. With less of a fleet of vehicles/ships/air craft I argue that less just leads to more problems and said fleet being stretched beyond its limits.


----------



## kratz (7 Dec 2013)

The breaking point was already reached with Afghanistan.

We started out attempting to do the job with what we had,
and it was blatantly substandard. So Canadians paid through
the nose for a few upgrades to meet the role we had and 
that is about it.


----------



## marinemech (7 Dec 2013)

How much have we got tied up in purchases, that have not been delivered, and are so far behind schedule, that we should be fining them more than what we are (currently between 1.5-2 million per month) and the first heli is not slated to be sitting on a Canadian Forces base till 2015, and the other 27 will likely be not ready till the 2020's. This was a 2 Billion dollar expense back in 2004, with delivery slated for 2009.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Dec 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Quite agree.  It seems that every military purchase by the Canadian Government since the Korean War amounted to half of what was to be replaced.  We gradually watched our three Services whittled away.  My father was in the RCAF and posted to 1 (F) Wing in Marville, France.  We had four operational RCAF Fighter Wings in Europe in 1950's to 1960's, and a Air Division Headquarters in Metz.  Since then we have gradually seen the RCAF slashed to where we less aircraft in Canada today, than we had in Europe five decades ago.  We have seen Canada go from the third largest Navy in the world at the end of WW II to one of the smallest.  With Unification, we saw many Regular and Reserve Army units disappear.   The trend has always seemed to be to replace what we have with half that number when purchasing new equipment.
> 
> Cuts to infrastructure and OEM have lead to facilities and equipment not being kept in repair, which incurs even more expense, and the cycle goes on.
> 
> Technology advancements over the years have increased the costs of doing business.  Keeping up in the 'Arms Race' is not cheap.  Equipping a military on the cheap is not a truly viable solution if one wants to maintain a status quo on the world stage.




The technological advances have also let us do more, or, at least, the same, with less. The two squadrons of CF-18s we had in Germany in the 1980s were more capable than the four wings we had there in the 1950s and '60s ~ the few CF-18s could carry more bombs farther and faster than all those F-86s.

It is not quite the same with ships - the number of hulls still matters, but each hull is more capable and can stay at sea longer, cover more ground ocean and so on. As we have noted elsewhere, out little MCDVs, which are about the same size as a World War II corvette, can do at least as much patrolling with a crew that is ½ or even ⅓ as large. So technology does work for us, too.

Historically, since the 1950s, the rate of inflation for aerospace and electronics has been far, far higher than the general rate of inflation, something that many bureaucrats, especially those not in the defence departments, want to hide. Part of our strength lies in a technological edge over potential enemies and that edge costs real dollars ~ all those R&D costs have to be recouped.

But, there is no question: we had a more "capable" army when it had 13 battalions of infantry. Each of today's battalions is superior in training, professionalism and equipment than the one in which I served last, but the one in which I served was bigger (960 soldiers), and was a well equipped as almost any in the world, including any in the Warsaw Pact,  and we had more of 'em, supported by regiments (plural) of main battle tanks and self propelled howitzers and so on.

Ditto the Navy: a navy with an aircraft carrier, 13 new destroyers and a dozen or so middle aged frigates was more capable than one with just 12 frigates, no mater how good the frigates might be.

But defence spending in Canada has declined from over 5% of GDP, in the late 1950s, to about 1.5% of GDP now, and that is a reflection of our national priorities. And that;'s not just successive governments' priorities, that Canadians' priorities. Governments, and opposition parties, listen carefully to the people, and for our people defence spending ranks very near the bottom of any list, down with symphony orchestras and opera houses.


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Dec 2013)

That is not to say that we are a nation of peaceniks, but our national experience plus the accidents of geography and history and the neighbourhood we live in has given us a sense of security.

I could probably do a fair size book on the matter, but let me throw a few things on the table:

a. we were extremely fortunate in our domestic "enemies" over the last 150 years - the Fenians, Metis, FLQ and even the Oka/Akwesane (sp?) Mohawks were not really all that much of a threat and all folded when presented with coherent opposition.  Terrorism has of yet not really touched us, or at least so we notied because of our ability to ignore things;

b. when the NATO/Korea build up started much of Europe was still in tatters and our Second World War generation was young, vigourous and all too aware of the folly on unpreparedness; and

c. once Europe recovered, there was a feeling that we had done our bit, and coupled with an anti-Vietnam backlash we caught from the Americans, led to a desire to increase domestic spending by diverting funds from defence.

Compared to what we spent on peacetime defence at any time in our history except the quarter century after the Second World War, we are not doing that badly. Given the desire to slay the deficit and put our financial house in order, we probably forunate that we do not have a blatantly anti-military party in power, even if this one works on the principle that talk, not to mention pips and crowns, is cheap.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Dec 2013)

E.R.C.

Agreed.  Technology has allowed our aircraft, AFVs, ships, and other weapons systems to do more, with more accuracy, than previous systems; and thus do more with less.  The unfortunate problem with this numbers game is that with fewer of these more technically advanced systems, even with the greater ranges they may have, they can not be everywhere all the time.  The coverage these 'fewer' systems have is limited.  Can we cover our whole land mass, and still have the capability to project a force on UN, NATO or other missions abroad without deducting from capabilities to protect our territory?  Afghanistan is a good example in that it was a sever strain on all of the CAF, not just the Army.   We have become quite adept at 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'.  I wonder if we will soon reach that breaking point where we will actually be 'killing Peter to save Paul'?


----------



## MilEME09 (7 Dec 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> We have become quite adept at 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'.  I wonder if we will soon reach that breaking point where we will actually be 'killing Peter to save Paul'?



3rd divisions reserve units have to give up the majority of their LSVW fleet to 2nd division because theirs are rusting and breaking down more. Some are both happy and sad about that here, I don't know if the reg force has to give theirs up as well. Strategically robbing one to save the other makes us weaker in areas where we shouldn't be, and usually 10% to 15% of a fleet is down is at one time or an other having less means even less is actually working.


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Dec 2013)

We're waiting for 4 Div to declare 50% of our b veh fleet surplus and transferred/divested. Hopefully some of them won't be actual vehicles we use, but decisions are far beyond unit level.


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Dec 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> E.R.C.
> 
> Agreed.  Technology has allowed our aircraft, AFVs, ships, and other weapons systems to do more, with more accuracy, than previous systems; and thus do more with less.  The unfortunate problem with this numbers game is that with fewer of these more technically advanced systems, even with the greater ranges they may have, they can not be everywhere all the time.  The coverage these 'fewer' systems have is limited.  _*Can we cover our whole land mass*_, and still have the capability to project a force on UN, NATO or other missions abroad without deducting from capabilities to protect our territory?  Afghanistan is a good example in that it was a sever strain on all of the CAF, not just the Army.   We have become quite adept at 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'.  I wonder if we will soon reach that breaking point where we will actually be 'killing Peter to save Paul'?



We don't need to cover our whole land mass, the US will never let Canada be threatened or attacked. The US has been protecting Canada with the assistance of the CF since 1945. 

You may not like that statement, but it's the truth.


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Dec 2013)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> 3rd divisions reserve units have to give up the majority of their LSVW fleet to 2nd division because theirs are rusting and breaking down more. Some are both happy and sad about that here, I don't know if the reg force has to give theirs up as well. Strategically robbing one to save the other makes us weaker in areas where we shouldn't be, and usually 10% to 15% of a fleet is down is at one time or an other having less means even less is actually working.



The Reserves have always augmented the Reg F for exercises, both equipment and personnel. That's part of the PRes role. Additionally, the truth is the Reg F have the higher requirement.

The Reg F support the PRes in many ways, incl schools, pers and equipment let alone their expertise.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Dec 2013)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> 3rd divisions reserve units have to give up the majority of their LSVW fleet to 2nd division because theirs are rusting and breaking down more. Some are both happy and sad about that here, I don't know if the reg force has to give theirs up as well. Strategically robbing one to save the other makes us weaker in areas where we shouldn't be, and usually 10% to 15% of a fleet is down is at one time or an other having less means even less is actually working.



All the LSVW fleet is being reviewed across the CAF and half are being divested.  It's not just you, muffin.


----------



## Navy_Pete (8 Dec 2013)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> unfortunately its a trend that is continuing back in the 70's/80's we had what 24 destroyers I think that CBC report said, we now have 3 destroyers and 12 frigates. Now it seems due to lack of funds the navy will end up with even less ships (though the project is in the early stages and really we probably would need to wait for the next federal budget to get an updated cost). Look at the Leopard 2's we can't even 1 for 1 replace the C2's. With less and less coming with each purchase eventually DND will have to draw the line, because technological advances doesn't mean you can do more with less. With less of a fleet of vehicles/ships/air craft I argue that less just leads to more problems and said fleet being stretched beyond its limits.



The other problem with less ships is that you feel the impact a lot more when a ship goes into it's normal docking cycle.  At any given point you can realistically expect half the fleet to be either in, going into, or coming out of a docking.  You can put off some maintenance, but there is a lot of docking dependent maintenance where the impact of not doing it is potential loss of the vessel.

So when they say there will be 8-12 CSCs, once they are fully delivered (if ever), you will probably have one per coast at full operations, one ramping down and another ramping up most of the time, with the rest in various maintenance periods.  

That's assuming they ever get built; a lot of the project requirements are just really stupid, and are stuck in the 1950s design ideas.


----------



## Ostrozac (8 Dec 2013)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> We don't need to cover our whole land mass, the US will never let Canada be threatened or attacked. The US has been protecting Canada with the assistance of the CF since 1945.
> 
> You may not like that statement, but it's the truth.



Never is a strong word. Actually, I can certainly envision an isolationist inward looking potential future USA that wouldn't be bothered with mutual defense treaties. But in that case, Canada would be protected by the three biggest water barriers in the world (the Arctic, Pacific and Atlantic Oceans), and by our extensive geography -- an invasion force from any of those three directions would land 1000's of kilometers from our population centers, and Canada could trade space for time in defence. And our climate is none too hospitable either.

Just as the British Army was never intended as a tool to defend the British Isles (that was first the job of the Royal Navy, then the job of NATO), the Canadian Forces has been, since the Boer War, primarily an expeditionary tool for use worldwide. A CF that was actually intended primarily for defence would look very different from what we have now.


----------



## Old Sweat (8 Dec 2013)

Sorry, but short of a complete economic collapse I can't imagine a scenario in which the United States would not react to a hostile invasion of Canadian territory. They might stand by in the case of a fisheries dispute such as the one which almost led to an armed confrontation with Spain, but I suspect they would muscle a cease fire very quickly. The Pearl Harbor and 9/11 syndrome is ingrained too deeply in their national consciousness to accept a threat on their border, and the Monroe Doctrine is lurking in the wings.

Your second paragraph captures the gist of the issue, and we don't necessarily need a large standing force if we plan to participate in multinational expeditionary operations, whatever the intensity. Could and should we beef up our forces? Sure, but this opinion is not widely held by the tax payers in the street or the senior officials in the government.

Many, many years ago - 1970 to be exact - the CF was faced with a budget frozen for three years and close to a 25% cut in numbers along with dropping some major bits of kit. This was after several years of a gradual erosion in strength and capability, and was touted at the time as the start in a planned run down of the forces. It was the worst reduction, but not the only, reduction I experienced and we made do somehow and will do so again. At least you will make do again, as all I have to do is check my pulse in the morning and then log on to army.ca.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (8 Dec 2013)

I don't really believe in this whole decade of darkness nonsense, it seems any time the government re-allocates or cuts budgets we cry wolf!  We are just drawing down from a 10 year war so of course the government is going to slash our budget, it only makes sense.  We are an all-volunteer military and it isn't like anyone is forcing our hand to stay if we don't like the way things are headed.  

It has already been noted that our military has primarily been used for expeditionary purposes since the end of the Second World War and I see no reason why this will change any time soon.  I do feel that given that we are a trading nation we should tailor our military to suit this reality.  I tend to agree with Rick Hillier that we could do with a smaller but "more highly trained" and "more professional" military.  I also think the army holds too much primacy in the halls of NDHQ and would like to see more resources allocated to the Navy and Air Force (Let all army officers forever crucify me but I firmly believe that the army holds too much power).

I think we need a stronger Navy to help maintain our status as a leading trading nation/protect our economic interests and I think our new center of gravity in the next century will be the Pacific Ocean (whether we like it or not)

I also hold the view that we need a stronger Air Force to move our army around quickly and have the ability to sustain/support our army on operations.

The army itself would shrink in size but would be more technologically advanced, better trained and would be tailored towards meeting the goals outlined in Land Operations 2021.

Edit:

I'll throw in this article from Time Magazine, which talks about building a smarter, smaller military.  While it is about the US Armed Forces I believe the options outlined in the article are also relevant for the Canadian Armed Forces.

http://nation.time.com/2012/12/06/building-a-smarter-smaller-military/


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Dec 2013)

[tangent]


			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Our commitment to NATO was vital in the 1950s and '60s ... it declined, towards the point of meaninglessness, by the 1980s. But, so did the need ... by the 1980s we were in Europe because it was the going price for a seat at the table,* not because anyone with the brains the gods gave to green peppers thought the Russians were coming.*


I disagree.  It wasn't until Gorbachev took over ~1985 that the threat subsided.  The closest we came to The Big Show was in the autumn of 1983.


[/tangent]


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Dec 2013)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> [tangent]I disagree.  It wasn't until Gorbachev took over ~1985 that the threat subsided.  The closest we came to The Big Show was in the autumn of 1983.
> 
> 
> [/tangent]



Further ff topic:


We'll have to agree to disagree ... there were a couple of crises in the 1960s, Czechoslovakia in '68 comes to mind, that did have the potential to boil over, but after, say, 1970, I would argue that we and the Russians knew that they lacked both the capacity and will to successfully invade Germany. They still had HUGE _strategic_ power, but MAD, nihilistic as it was, worked; but their _tactical_ power, on the other hand, was inadequate.


----------



## my72jeep (8 Dec 2013)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> [tangent]I disagree.  It wasn't until Gorbachev took over ~1985 that the threat subsided.  The closest we came to The Big Show was in the autumn of 1983.
> 
> 
> [/tangent]



KAL Flight 007, I was in 4 CER then and we though we were going to war.


----------



## GR66 (8 Dec 2013)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> [tangent]I disagree.  It wasn't until Gorbachev took over ~1985 that the threat subsided.  The closest we came to The Big Show was in the autumn of 1983.
> 
> 
> [/tangent]



While the potential for nuclear confrontation certainly remained, I suspect that what ERC was suggesting is that nobody was seriously expecting Soviet armoured columns to attempt to roll through the Fulda Gap in an attempt to defeat NATO in a conventional war.  I don't think anyone was naïve enough to think that actual invasion was an option because the obvious reaction to any successful attack would be massive nuclear retaliation.


----------



## UnwiseCritic (8 Dec 2013)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> It has already been noted that our military has primarily been used for expeditionary purposes since the end of the Second World War and I see no reason why this will change any time soon.  I do feel that given that we are a trading nation we should tailor our military to suit this reality.  I tend to agree with Rick Hillier that we could do with a smaller but "more highly trained" and "more professional" military.  I also think the army holds too much primacy in the halls of NDHQ and would like to see more resources allocated to the Navy and Air Force (Let all army officers forever crucify me but I firmly believe that the army holds too much power).
> 
> I think we need a stronger Navy to help maintain our status as a leading trading nation/protect our economic interests and I think our new center of gravity in the next century will be the Pacific Ocean (whether we like it or not)
> 
> ...



I think the reality of it though is that the politicians in Canada see our forces as an arm to help bring them into office. And cutting a bunch of troops would probably not sit well with the public. As where I come from if you join the military it's because you're not capable of anything else. Or you join for the education. (Completely incorrect). So all the public wants to hear where I from is how good is the food, is the bed comfortable, are they mistreating you, etc. So cutting troops would be seen as the same as cutting welfare from people who need it.

In the Canadian first defence strategy it mentions bringing our reg force up to 70000 to improve our military effectiveness. So if we wanted to cut our military down to size to fit our  mandate. The government would have to give us a new direction. And I think going more towards Naval  capability during a time of increasing globalization would be wise. To make it more professional our recruiting process should be more rigorous. Fitness testing to be included again (probably save millions, lol). And I also think different fitness standards for different jobs. I know fitness isn't everything but realistically how much money does our military spend on trying to make our forces fit, how much do we spend on injured soldiers, sick days or people that just can't do their jobs. There's a reason we have different educational standards, because the job requires different attributes. So do jobs physically. Sorry about the tangent.

Perhaps buying some of those support ships the Australians are acquiring... I believe China is also buying ships with similar capabilities.

Edit: I also think that if Canada wants to be taken seriously by NATO we should try and get as close as possible to the required 2% of GDP dedicated to the Military.


----------



## blacktriangle (8 Dec 2013)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I don't really believe in this whole decade of darkness nonsense, it seems any time the government re-allocates or cuts budgets we cry wolf!  We are just drawing down from a 10 year war so of course the government is going to slash our budget, it only makes sense.  We are an all-volunteer military and it isn't like anyone is forcing our hand to stay if we don't like the way things are headed.
> 
> It has already been noted that our military has primarily been used for expeditionary purposes since the end of the Second World War and I see no reason why this will change any time soon.  I do feel that given that we are a trading nation we should tailor our military to suit this reality.  I tend to agree with Rick Hillier that we could do with a smaller but "more highly trained" and "more professional" military.  I also think the army holds too much primacy in the halls of NDHQ and would like to see more resources allocated to the Navy and Air Force (Let all army officers forever crucify me but I firmly believe that the army holds too much power).
> 
> ...



I would actually like to buy you a beer in Kingston for this post. I think this is exactly what we need as well. Glad to see there are Officers that agree. 


I was thinking that our land forces should include a maintained CANSOFCOM, as well as fewer, but more capable "Regular" units that are fully manned and given the various enablers/support functions they need. Able to deploy on shorter notice and as whole, without calling across the street to rob a Coy and some vehicles from another battalion. 

I will leave it to those with the experience and knowledge to figure out how that could be done...but I do think the Navy and Air Force should have the lead in the defence of Canada. Our ground forces should be small, superbly trained, and should act as a surgical tool that we can deploy on short notice in support of our own interests, or in niche contributions to our allies. 

We simply do not have the public support or political will in Canada to maintain a large, long standing military. That is the most important thing I have learned from nearly a decade of reading Army.ca. We need to accept this and organize ourselves to give the most possible BANG for the taxpayer's buck.


----------



## UnwiseCritic (8 Dec 2013)

:goodpost: I hope we go that direction.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Dec 2013)

GR66 said:
			
		

> While the potential for nuclear confrontation certainly remained, I suspect that what ERC was suggesting is that nobody was seriously expecting Soviet armoured columns to attempt to roll through the Fulda Gap in an attempt to defeat NATO in a conventional war.  I don't think anyone was naïve enough to think that actual invasion was an option because the obvious reaction to any successful attack would be massive nuclear retaliation.



Actually, we did take the threat of the East Germans, Czech, and Russians racing through the Fulda Gap, the North German Plains and another high speed route up the  Danube River valley, as well as dropping Spetsnaz into France to secure the French nuclear sites quite seriously.  It wasn't until the "Wall" came down that we got to know the true state the Warsaw Pact armies were in.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Dec 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Further ff topic:
> 
> 
> We'll have to agree to disagree ... there were a couple of crises in the 1960s, Czechoslovakia in '68 comes to mind, that did have the potential to boil over, but after, say, 1970, I would argue that we and the Russians knew that they lacked both the capacity and will to successfully invade Germany. They still had HUGE _strategic_ power, but MAD, nihilistic as it was, worked; but their _tactical_ power, on the other hand, was inadequate.


I agree with you re: capabilities.  My point being that irrespective of the actual capabilities, politicians on both sides could very well have blundered into a general conflagration,  hence my example of 1983, vice Czechoslovakia,  Hungary,  Cuba, etc.


It's the accidental war, vice the planned war, that presented us with the most danger.


----------



## Journeyman (9 Dec 2013)

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> In the Canadian first defence strategy it mentions bringing our reg force up to 70000 to improve our military effectiveness.


Canada First Defence Strategy has been....._amended_....and is about to be re-issued.


I don't know if it will be re-titled "Canada First Defence Strategy 2.0" or "Canada's _Second_ First Defence Strategy"


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Dec 2013)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> We simply do not have the public support or political will in Canada to maintain a large, long standing military. That is the most important thing I have learned from nearly a decade of reading Army.ca. We need to accept this and organize ourselves to give the most possible BANG for the taxpayer's buck.


As others way smarter than me have said before, support's a mile wide and an inch deep.


----------



## Sailorwest (10 Dec 2013)

On the surface, I find most Canadians are publically (and I think, genuinely) supportive of the military and particularly the members. What they really want though, is a small, relatively inexpensive force that can go away on benign peacekeeping operations, disaster recovery and the like, without causing any negative media attention. When you ask the average person where the government should put it's priorities, supporting the military comes pretty far down that list.


----------



## MeanJean (10 Dec 2013)

You know... "A Canadian soldier could be in a worse position than being dropped unprepared into the middle of a Norwegian winter... He could be in the Navy."


----------



## kratz (10 Dec 2013)

MeanJean said:
			
		

> You know... "A Canadian soldier could be in a worse position than being dropped unprepared into the middle of a Norwegian winter... He could be in the Navy."



Hey!! I resemble that remark.  ;D


----------



## YZT580 (10 Dec 2013)

Sailorwest said:
			
		

> On the surface, I find most Canadians are publically (and I think, genuinely) supportive of the military and particularly the members. What they really want though, is a small, relatively inexpensive force that can go away on benign peacekeeping operations, disaster recovery and the like, without causing any negative media attention. When you ask the average person where the government should put it's priorities, supporting the military comes pretty far down that list.



First sentence is right on.  Second sentence I question.  Canadians, as do most global citizens, parrot the press.  For some reason, people seem to feel that since politicians lie, and the press reveals their lies, therefore the press must always tell the truth.  Most reporters would like to see a small relatively inexpensive force that wear blue berets and drive white GMCs.  Since they don't like people who carry guns, the military is always I mean always in their sights.  The only exception is when the snow birds are doing a flybye and even then they criticize the fuel consumption.  If somehow the truth and purpose and needs of the armed forces could be printed in a way that people would read, I think that their would be considerably less opposition and considerably more support.


----------



## GR66 (11 Dec 2013)

If the CF can't get the money to do everything it would like (or even need) to do as a fully self-sufficient, multi-role military perhaps we need to take a closer look at how we can provide the most bang for our buck with our allies.  When do we deploy on our own?  The rest of the world is going through the same cutbacks that we are so will we just end up with a whole bunch of smaller, less capable allied militaries that can each work less effectively alongside the Americans?  

Maybe if we look at the gaps that exist in the effective deployment of our probable coalition partners (our typical deployment scenario) we could identify some capabilities which we could develop/expand in order to magnify the strengths of our partners.  If our partners have forces to deploy but can't get them there then maybe we could expand our air transport fleet.  More air-to-air refueling or AORs to support allied air/naval deployments.  Specialist units like electronic warfare, counter-battery, CRBN, etc.  I'm not saying that these are the specific capabilities we could/should focus on...just giving some possible examples.

There would of course then have to be a trade-off by decreasing, or possibly even eliminating, other existing capabilities (this is fundamentally about the money after all).  For example, what if we dropped out of the armoured business and relied on our more capable allies to provide that support when required (like some of our allies relied on our tank support in Afghanistan when they didn't have the capability in theatre)?  Where could we put that money in other capabilities that would provide an even larger positive impact on coalition military operations than our relatively small armoured force?  Again...I'm not making that recommendation, just using it as a possible example.

A possible side benefit could also be that some of these capabilities might be more politically sellable to the Canadian public than more traditional military capabilities.  Procuring and deploying support units/equipment is much more politically safe than nasty, warlike thinks like tanks, submarines and stealth fighters.  

Such a policy certainly wouldn't be without risks either.  The world is a very uncertain place and what happens if a situation should arise where we really NEED a particular military capability and don't have it available anymore?  Canadian blood and treasure could certainly be on the line.  There is also the political risk that we wouldn't get credit from our allies for the things we do in the same way as putting "boots on the ground" in a more traditional way.  If we're not seen as useful and helpful then we could lose much of our say at a lot of important tables around the world.  I think such a policy would certainly require a VERY close relationship, cooperation, coordination and interoperability with our closest allies.  We'd need to work hand-in-hand with them so that they're intimately aware of how important OUR role is in their successful fulfillment of THEIR roles.  

Regardless of what we do money for the CF will likely be quite tight for a number of years to come.  Any course of action (or inaction) is going to have impacts on the capabilities of the CF.  The military might wither across the board, waiting for a return of money and a chance to renew in the same basic structure, or it might make some very specific and targeted changes which could see the CF with very different capabilities and structures than it has currently.  Either way I think it's important to have these very basic level discussions so that the government and the CF can be proactive in facing the budget constraints rather than just reacting to them.


----------

