# Poor equipment for troops is a Canadian tradition



## GAP (16 Apr 2012)

Poor equipment for troops is a Canadian tradition
April 16, 2012  By SCOTT TAYLOR
Article Link

As the political storm continues to swirl around the purchase of the F-35 joint strike fighters, the Conservatives have resorted to the age-old tactic of wrapping themselves in the flag and declaring their love for our troops.

Regardless of the costs and multibillion-dollar accounting glitches in their procurement, the Harper government would have us all believe that (and I paraphrase for brevity) no price is too high to ensure that the men and women who wear the uniform will have the best possible equipment to defend Canada’s sovereignty, our core Canadian values and all things good in the world.

In other words, anyone who questions the decision to purchase the F-35 must be either anti-Canadian or pro-evil.

While such rhetoric may play well as a retort during question period or in a media sound bite, the sad fact is that rarely, if ever, have the Canadian Forces deployed on operations with the best equipment required.

Given the lengthy lead time necessary for major military acquisitions and the comparative rapid rotations of the governing parties, there is often a justifiable measure of mutual finger-pointing when such projects attract negative attention.

For instance, the Conservatives are quick to remind Canadians that it was the Liberals who first entered Canada into the preliminary joint strike fighter program. Similarly, when reports surfaced recently about the woeful state of our navy’s submarine fleet, the Conservatives voiced their continued support for the subs but took the opportunity to remind all involved that it was the Liberals who had purchased the problem-plagued, second-hand British boats in the first place.

When the Chretien Liberal government dispatched our first ground troops to Afghanistan in 2002, they deployed wearing dark green camouflage uniforms. Despite the fact that in the previous decade alone, Canadian soldiers had served in three separate desert environment missions (Western Sahara, Somalia and Eritrea), no one thought to keep desert camouflage in stock.

When Canadians deployed to Kabul in 2003, their main vehicle for transportation was the Iltis jeep. These worn-out, lightweight utility vehicles had been earmarked for urgent replacement 10 years earlier, but when Chretien was elected in 1993, he scrapped the procurement project. It was only after three soldiers died in two separate incidents involving the Iltis that the government moved hastily toward acquiring the heavier, better-protected Mercedes-Benz Gelandewagens.

In 1992, as part of their post-Cold War cost-cutting, the Mulroney Conservative government decided that rather than upgrade the Royal Canadian Air Force’s six Chinook heavy-lift helicopters, we would simply give the choppers away to the Netherlands.

Fast-forward to 2006: the newly elected Harper Conservatives find they have inherited a worsening combat mission in southern Afghanistan. With road travel becoming increasingly dangerous, the military’s suggested solution is to acquire Chinook heavy-lift helicopters. While Boeing was contracted to produce 15 of the latest F-model Chinooks, the wait list precluded Canada from taking delivery until long after our projected Kandahar pullout date. The stopgap solution was to spend $300 million to acquire six used D-model United States air force Chinooks.

For the Canadian Battle Group to be equipped with modern howitzers in Afghanistan, the army had to beg the U.S. Marines for a battery of M777 artillery pieces. Canada then paid the manufacturer to have new gun systems delivered as replacements to the marines. We pay for new, but deploy with used.

A similar arrangement was made to borrow Leopard 2 tanks that were in service with the German army. In theory, as long as we returned them to the Germans in the same condition as we borrowed them, there would be no charge. Of course, in reality, Canada had to pay for the complete overhaul and upgrades to fully replace those now-battered tanks, which were taken on loan. In other words, Canadian soldiers may have hastily acquired some of the best equipment for use in Afghanistan, but it was not drawn from our own inventory.

Were it not for the generosity of our NATO allies, Canada’s military equipment shortfalls would have been far more apparent and likely would have resulted in a greater loss of life.

The F-35 purchase has now become the latest political battlefield, but in light of our nation’s relatively brief history, it will be difficult for any party to claim the moral high ground when it comes to arming and equipping our forces.

The Canadian Forces have a proud record of accomplishing their assigned tasks despite their political leadership, not because of it.
end


----------



## aesop081 (16 Apr 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> The stopgap solution was to spend $300 million to acquire six used D-model *United States air force Chinooks*.



Small point but the D-models we got did not come from the USAF.

Reporters fact-ckeck, right ?

Edit : Nevermind......Scott Taylor........ :


----------



## Old Sweat (16 Apr 2012)

Scott Taylor has done it again with another one of his shot gun articles, This time it is about poor equipment being a Canadian tradition. In doing so he managed to include our rebuilt D model Chinooks, the M777s and the Leo 2s. I guess the F35 will fit in there too.

I can't speak for the other kit, but contrary to what he claimed, our M777s were diverted to us as they came off the production line, and were not used and priced as new. The Canadian Army was the first military force to use the howitzer in action. As for it being poor equipment which is the title of the article, I don't recall hearing too many bitches from either the users or the troops they supported. Come to think of it, the Chinooks and Leo 2s also seemed to have worked out pretty well.


----------



## Petard (16 Apr 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Poor equipment for troops is a Canadian tradition
> April 16, 2012  By SCOTT TAYLOR
> Article Link
> 
> ...



The M777's purchased through foregin military sales in 2005 were delivered new (bought from the US Navy incidentally), and were not used or second hand as it were.  
To some degree his point is correct though, but not the source; our solution to that capability deficiency did depend on the Americans having that capability readily available, and their willingness to delay delivery of those guns to Marine units, which allowed us to acquire them quickly directly from the US Gov't but not from the manufacturer.


----------



## 57Chevy (16 Apr 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> The Canadian Forces have a proud record of accomplishing their assigned tasks



..........no matter the condition of the equipment nor the colour of the uniform.
Buy, beg, borrow or steal, if it's in the system (anywhere) we'll get it, and we'll make damn good use of it too. 
That's the way I see it.

Forget about the generosity of allies bull.....that's what they're there for.

 :2c:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Apr 2012)

I for one applaud the fact that the Conservatives were able to creatively acquire equipment for the soldiers to use in the now rather than in the future. I note that he neglected to mention the C-17's which our allies allowed us to step to the head of the line so we could become more self sufficient.


----------



## Danjanou (16 Apr 2012)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I for one applaud the fact that the Conservatives were able to creatively acquire equipment for the soldiers to use in the now rather than in the future. I note that he neglected to mention the C-17's which our allies allowed us to step to the head of the line so we could become more self sufficient.



Colin you mean neglect to mention a fact that rather than supports his rather dubious point, actually disproves it.  Yeah I didn't see that happening anytime soon.   :


----------



## dapaterson (16 Apr 2012)

Perhaps we need a thread titled "Poor research for articles is a Scott Taylor tradition".


----------



## Danjanou (16 Apr 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Perhaps we need a thread titled "Poor research for articles is a Scott Taylor tradition".



Yeah that would mean a F/T paid mod positon here. 8)


----------



## medicineman (16 Apr 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Perhaps we need a thread titled "Poor research for articles is a Scott Taylor tradition".



I think Mike B would get another lawyer's letter...even though it's only libel if it's a lie.

MM


----------



## RangerRay (16 Apr 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Nevermind......Scott Taylor........ :



And another kitten dies...  :'(

I can't believe I bought one of his books...  :facepalm:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Apr 2012)

That's what libraries are for, test driving books.

Well it's nice that a Corporal can make it as a military journalist, I am not about to pick him as the poster boy on grunts making good.


----------



## wildman0101 (16 Apr 2012)

That's a known  fact. Goint back to the 1700's. Through the boy's together,, train em 
up on the weopen's ya got and send them out to war ill-iquiped and hope for the best .
When I joined we were still using the Centurion's (MBT) Then the Leopard replaced them.
We were doing Recce Ferret Scout Car Lynx. Ferret was a WW2 Recce car. M113 Recce
Lynx. Shifted to AVGP To do the Recce role. Piece of S@@@. I've been out to long so I
cant say Re:Wheeled. Or Leo 2 as I only gunned Leo 1,,, Recce,, Ferret,,Lynx. So all I 
Can say is work with what you got  and Kick Ass. Bold and swift. Scoty B


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Apr 2012)

Mr Taylor sounds pretty supportive of what we bitch about here, doesn't he??

The US troops we worked with in March were pretty envious of our equipment that the average soldier was carrying- we had numerous US soldiers ask us if we were special forces.  They didn't even see the 'good stuff' we brought.


----------



## Strike (16 Apr 2012)

Don't forget the door guns we got for the Griffons while they were deployed.  Pretty damn sure those weren't second hand.

Damn those things were cool!   ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Apr 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> Don't forget the door guns we got for the Griffons while they were deployed.  Pretty damn sure those weren't second hand.
> 
> Damn those things were cool!   ;D



I'm jealous of the Royal Fleet Axillary Oilers.  They have two on the bridge wings instead of .50's or GPMG's.  I'd be really happy to see Dillons come to the Fleet here too.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (16 Apr 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Poor equipment for troops is a Canadian tradition
> April 16, 2012  By SCOTT TAYLOR
> Article Link
> 
> ...



My understanding of this situation from General hilliers book was that it was the RCAF that disbanded the chinooks, not a government, due to their wanting to maintain the fighter fleet, and the army not wanting to foot the bill.

Mr. Taylor also fails to distinguish between the Progressive Conservatives of PM Mulroney and the new Conservative party.  Not likely an accident.

Finally, I dont understand the point that he is trying to make... is he saying that we should cancel the F-35 so that we can buy something else later once it's too late?


----------



## George Wallace (16 Apr 2012)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Finally, I dont understand the point that he is trying to make... is he saying that we should cancel the F-35 so that we can buy something else later once it's too late?



I don't think he is doing much more than throwing a rock into the muddied waters.   He will claim he was right whichever way the decisions swing.


----------



## Loachman (22 Apr 2012)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> My understanding of this situation from General hilliers book was that it was the RCAF that disbanded the chinooks, not a government, due to their wanting to maintain the fighter fleet, and the army not wanting to foot the bill.



The RCAF never owned Chinooks.

That aside, they required a major rebuild, to D-model standard. It was expensive, and there was not a lot of money around at that point.


----------



## Maxadia (22 Apr 2012)

Right from the book, on p. 109:

  "With funding cuts reaching critical levels, the air force and the army couldn't agree on what to do with our helicopters.   So we sold our big, heavy lift helicopters, the Chinooks, to the Netherlands, leaving us with only small civilian Griffon helos tarted up as utility helicopters."

"A Soldier First: Bullets, Bureaucrats and the Politics of War [Hardcover]." A Soldier First: Bullets, Bureaucrats and the Politics of War: Amazon.ca: Rick Hillier: Books. Web. 22 Apr. 2012. . <http://www.amazon.ca/Soldier-First-Bullets-Bureaucrats-Politics/dp/1554684919>.


----------



## aesop081 (22 Apr 2012)

RDJP said:
			
		

> Right from the book:



Who's book ?

Nevermind.


----------



## Maxadia (22 Apr 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Who's book ?
> 
> Nevermind.



No, you'e completely correct.  I had to run upstairs for a minute before I could finish the citation for it, but hit send anyway.


----------



## Journeyman (22 Apr 2012)

Without mentioning any one of several writers (I can't bring myself to call them "journalists")...
Poor equipment for troops writing on military topics is a Canadian tradition, which is a clear tie-in with the other thread on Canadians being ill-informed on defence/security topics.


 :boring:  <---- me, not getting too worked up over the blathering of certain self-important scribblers.


----------

