# Future of the Canadian Army



## FutureSight (26 Jul 2013)

The reason I am posting this is to provoke thought and debate about the future of our Army.

In a time of fiscal constraints and budget cuts, I am beginning to see errors and decisions being made that are reminiscent of recent history. DND over the last few years have made fiscal decisions and procurement choices based on a reactive mindset rather than a pre-emptive one. I will start be saying that when it comes to training, no one can refute that our men and women are some of the best trained in the world when push comes to shove. Our equipment is rather lacking. By example, although Afghanistan effectively saved the Armoured Core (proving why we need them), we currently have 3 tank systems.... same platform but all different systems. I am sure any tanker can ratify that. Over a decade ago we decided to mothball our Medium Lift capability in the Chinook. The understanding was that we could rely on our allies for the capability and that we would not need a medium lift capability. Although one cannot have the foresight of the time of Afghanistan and that need, but fiscally, sustaining the capability at a minimum and simply expanding when needed would be 'cheaper' than standing the capability up from scratch. 

Moving from that loss and new acquisition I look to the current situation of Canada's now lack of an AA capability with the mothballing of the ADAT system. I acknowledge that the ADAT system was meant for Cold-War era mass air defence, AA is still a capability we require. The argument is said we can rely on NATO allies to provide any AA capacity. And although a valid argument, I will play devils advocate and say not really. We can rely on our allies for a AA capabilities in the event of a Mass Air Attack, but we need to focus on Anti-CAS (Close Air Support) and Anti-Drone capabilities. Maintaining the knowledge and experience developed after years with the ADATs could be used to foster and develop these capabilities easier than starting from scratch. Although I could be wrong, Canada can rely on our allies for standard conventional support, but as a smaller army, we need to be autonomous in different capacities.

Moving away from equipment capabilities, I look towards the means in which we train and educate our men and women. Organizations like LFDTS and the Schools (under CDA and CTC) need to be preserved and should not be the first on the chopping blocks when it comes to fiscal constraints. Unlike operational training it takes years to develop doctrine and ensure that the army has the means in which to training and educate our soldiers. Also certain technical abilities developed and maintained by the schools are necessities to a functioning army (specializations like recce, or SIGINT, etc) need to be maintained cause you cannot start that from scratch without substantial costs (money and errors) and time. The reality is you can stand up an Infantry battalion from scratch in 3 years (maybe less) if you have the proper training methods and doctrine. I am not insulting the infantry but stating that in the grand scope, the infantry's job is to seize and hold the ground. Whereas skill necessary to support the infantry are much more specialized.

In a traditional army, the army is built around supporting the infantry for conventional warfare. The reality is no country that has a stomach for a complete conventional war (WW2). You may hear that the Army has to be able to fight a war, a war meaning Russian Tanks rolling over German plains and attacking by example, but in reality we must be combat efficient and effective. We need to define, not only for the Army but the Air force and Navy, what our role is and move in that direction rather than floundering and making decisions (both fiscally and organizationally) based on a reactive manner­. We will save more money, time and effectively more lives if we have a little more foresight and look beyond what is happening in the next 2-5 years and begin looking into 10-20 years from now.

Than again I could be wrong.

What are your thoughts ladies and gentlemen?


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Jul 2013)

Ryan Chapman said:
			
		

> What are your thoughts ladies and gentlemen?



I have no idea what you are talking about but I think you are implying we should scrap the F35s and develop better armor for our infantry soldiers- possibly even powered armor such as those envisioned by  Robert Heinlein

I agree.


----------



## Journeyman (26 Jul 2013)

Ryan Chapman said:
			
		

> .... if we have a little more foresight and look beyond what is happening in the next 2-5 years and begin looking into 10-20 years from now.


 Why hasn't anyone thought of that before?!  That's brilliant.   :bowdown:


      :sarcasm:


----------



## Cbbmtt (26 Jul 2013)

With all the movies coming out about zombies, monsters coming out of the seas and aliens invading. In my opinion all focus should be on force fields, plasma rifles and full body armor that can not be breached by bites. Yes no?


----------



## Monsoon (26 Jul 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> > ...if we have a little more foresight and look beyond what is happening in the next 2-5 years and begin looking into 10-20 years from now.
> 
> 
> Why hasn't anyone thought of that before?!  That's brilliant.   :bowdown:


If only there were an organization of some kind within the CF responsible for that sort of thing... http://www.cfd-cdf.forces.gc.ca/


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (26 Jul 2013)

RookieMistake said:
			
		

> The reason I am posting this is to provoke thought and debate about the future of our Army.
> 
> Moving from that loss and new acquisition I look to the current situation of Canada's now lack of an AA capability with the mothballing of the ADAT system. I acknowledge that the ADAT system was meant for Cold-War era mass air defence, AA is still a capability we require. The argument is said we can rely on NATO allies to provide any AA capacity. And although a valid argument, I will play devils advocate and say not really. We can rely on our allies for a AA capabilities in the event of a Mass Air Attack, but we need to focus on Anti-CAS (Close Air Support) and Anti-Drone capabilities. Maintaining the knowledge and experience developed after years with the ADATs could be used to foster and develop these capabilities easier than starting from scratch. Although I could be wrong, Canada can rely on our allies for standard conventional support, but as a smaller army, we need to be autonomous in different capacities.



Some minor corrections on your para.... First, it's Ground Based Air Defence (GBAD) not AA. There's also no such thing as "Anti-CAS" and drones=UAS. That said, the idea that we can just have "others do our air defence" is in fact completely false. Coalition Air Defence is generally kept at the bde level, and it is not likely that it would be sent TACON/OPCON to a coalition partner. We may get lucky and "fall under the umbrella", but with more dispersed deployments even this is unlikely. Further, in domestic ops the idea that a foreign country would provide our defence is a non-starter. That said, a new weapon system is coming in the 7-9 year time frame (due to the procurement system) and there are courses and training being conducted at the RCAS to continue to develop GBAD skills in the officer and NCO corps until the new system arrives. 



			
				RookieMistake said:
			
		

> In a traditional army, the army is built around supporting the infantry for conventional warfare. The reality is no country that has a stomach for a complete conventional war (WW2). You may hear that the Army has to be able to fight a war, a war meaning Russian Tanks rolling over German plains and attacking by example, but in reality we must be combat efficient and effective. We need to define, not only for the Army but the Air force and Navy, what our role is and move in that direction rather than floundering and making decisions (both fiscally and organizationally) based on a reactive manner­. We will save more money, time and effectively more lives if we have a little more foresight and look beyond what is happening in the next 2-5 years and begin looking into 10-20 years from now.



Do a search for the Canada First Defence Policy and Land Force 2021- Adapted Dispersed Operations.... I suspect that these documents will indicate that there is thought into the future environment and guiding principles. As for the "a war" vs "the war" for training... the best way for the military to train, IMHO, is in the conventional fashion with an eye towards adapted dispersed operations. The reason is that it is the best way to ensure that the basic soldier skills are developed and high level planning and operations are able to be conducted. This will make us "combat efficient and effective" moreso than adapting an Afghan model and hoping the next war fits that particular model. It's easier to train to a higher standard than adapt our practices and TTPs down to meet lower level or unique environments.


----------



## Danjanou (26 Jul 2013)

Ok I know as a mod I should be acting like an adult and shutting this thread down before it gets way out of hand 



...... but having a slow day here and I'm bored so...........  op:


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Jul 2013)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Ok I know as a mod I should be acting like an adult and shutting this thread down before it gets way out of hand
> 
> 
> 
> ...... but having a slow day here and I'm bored so...........  op:



Maybe you're just pro F35 and anti-infantry..


----------



## Remius (26 Jul 2013)

I don't care what we do 1, 2 or 10 or 20 years from now.

As long as I get a jetpack and some lasers.  Oh and since we are doing the whole heritage thing I want my QL4 flamethrower course.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (26 Jul 2013)

Whoa, whoa, whoa; one bound at time!

The Canadian Army has a focus for the future. I refer you to this thread, which I can only assume is the only important thing we need to focus on: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/16520/post-1245721/topicseen.html


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Jul 2013)

RookieMistake said:
			
		

> Than again I could be wrong.



And 'grammatically incorrect'.  Talk about concurrent activity!!!   ;D



> What are your thoughts ladies and gentlemen?



Well, right now I'm thinking I wish it would cool off some on the deck so I can get the damn BBQ going without cooking myself in the heat out there!   rly:



* there are way too many things to address in your post so...I got thinking about BBQing.


----------



## pbi (26 Jul 2013)

RookieMistake said:
			
		

> The reason I am posting this is to provoke thought and debate about the future of our Army....What are your thoughts ladies and gentlemen?



RookieMistake: Not a bad first shot: you're thinking about lots of important things. The problem I find with your post is just that: you're thinking about lots of things-I can't really understand what the question is that you're asking.

Try again: get it down to one or two short paragraphs, ending with a clear question we can bite on. There's no shortage of good opinion available to you on these pages, if people can understand you.

Cheers


----------



## IRepoCans (26 Jul 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I have no idea what you are talking about but I think you are implying we should scrap the F35s and develop better armor for our infantry soldiers- possibly even powered armor such as those envisioned by  Robert Heinlein
> 
> I agree.



The glory of the infantry shall last forever?


----------



## Ostrozac (27 Jul 2013)

IRepoCans said:
			
		

> The glory of the infantry shall last forever?



Shines the name, shines the name of Rodger Young!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodger_Wilton_Young

If you don't get the reference, then shame on you, and you should hit the Canadian Army reading list.


----------

