# Canada needs aircraft carriers to revamp military: retired general



## Korus (30 May 2003)

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?articleID=1337970&pageID=canada_archive  


-------------

Canada needs aircraft carriers to revamp military: retired general 

HALIFAX (CP) - Canada‘s military would be revitalized if it acquired aircraft carriers like the one the British used in the invasion of Iraq, a retired Canadian general said Friday. 
Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie, in a speech to a conference on world conflict and the military, said a small carrier the size of the Royal Navy‘s HMS Ark Royal could be used to ferry Canadian soldiers to wars and peacekeeping missions. "I‘d say we need two small aircraft carriers. . . . Think Ark Royal, like in the U.K., carrying vertical, short take-off aircraft," MacKenzie said during his speech. 

"Also, we need supply ships that carry soldiers as well as supplies and transport helicopters." 

MacKenzie, sporting a tie pin shaped like an artillery shell, told a crowd of about 200 academics at Dalhousie University that the ships would end an embarrassing era of being dependent on other nations for travel and supplies. 

"You can plug soldiers on board. You can plug equipment on board and you also have a platform where you can launch a ****  of a lot of firepower by attack helicopters and Harrier aircraft." 

"If I was an international commander and this force showed up on the horizon, I would kill to have it join me, as opposed to frequently when we show up on the horizon, we‘re a real pain in the *** ." 

The era of playing a specialized role with NATO allies is nearing its end, said MacKenzie, who led multinational peacekeeping missions in the former Yugoslavia. 

In the next decade, "you want to go as a Canadian package with a Canadian flag flying high," he said. 

MacKenzie also argued that Canada will no longer be able to safely charter Ukrainian transport aircraft to carry troops because the planes are so old they‘re becoming unsafe. 

Ark Royal, which went into service in 1985, is 210 metres long and has a displacement of 20,000 tonnes. A steep ski-jump-style launch pad puts jets into the air from the forward end of the flight deck. It also carries helicopters. 

The carrier was used during the Iraq war to carry commandos in an amphibious assault on the Al Faw Peninsula. 


Stephen Saunders, editor of Janes Fighting Ships, said in an interview from London, England, that several small nations are thinking of buying carriers. 

Before deciding on any purchase, he said, Canada would need to go through a review of its foreign and military policy. 

"But from a naval point of view, it‘s what a lot of countries are thinking about these days. Not just an aircraft carrier, but a ship capable of operating particularly helicopters and that can undertake a number of different roles." 

Canada has had carriers before - HMCS Warrior (1946-48), HMCS Magnificent (1948-57), and HMCS Bonaventure (1957-1970). 

Bonaventure, which in 1961 steamed almost 68,000 kilometres and was away from port for 178 days, could be pressed into service with its flight decked converted to an impromptu parking lot for Canadian equipment. But today the military is at the mercy of allies or commercial operators for overseas movement. 

MacKenzie admitted the roughly $1.8 billion cost of a carrier would be a tough sell. 

To convince Canadians, he said the government "would have to explain the pathetic situation we‘re in now where we‘re spending $12 billion but we can‘t even sustain a battalion of 900 people in a war zone for six months." 

"But surely there‘s some pride that goes with being a nation," he said. "That‘s something that has to be sold to a nation." 

Saunders noted that Spain has just announced it will build a small carrier. "Canada is not alone in thinking of this sort of thing," he said. 

During his speech, MacKenzie also argued Canada must accept that "the world‘s sheriff" will be the United States, and that the UN Security Council has failed in attempting to police conflicts around the globe. 

He said the Canadian Forces should include about 20,000 well-trained troops, and there should be three major bases - one on each coast and one in the centre of the country. 

"Of all forces in world that should be able to produce a totally joint commando, marine-type force, it‘s Canada. We‘ve done it before. We can do it again," he said. 

© The Canadian Press, 2003


----------



## SNoseworthy (30 May 2003)

Mackenzie is a smart guy, but when it comes to navy topics, I‘ve tend to see him stumble. Most of the Navy guys I have talked with say "yes it would be nice to have a CV, but we don‘t actually need one."


----------



## Korus (30 May 2003)

We need sailors to man out existing fleet...   

I think the main point he was getting at, though, was to aquire an assault carrier capable of transporting Canadian Troops.. 

It‘s a nice thought to add to the wish list, but I personally don‘t see it happening any time soon.


----------



## Thaedes (30 May 2003)

Well it would be great to see, but again like Korus said, I don‘t see it happening.

The military budget is slowly reduced, we can‘t afford most of what we already had.  Why bother?

A better idea would be to start getting the shipyards in Halifax working.  Why not make our own ****ed Carriers, instead of buying them?  It would take a larger budget then just buying it, but in 5 to 10 years we could have our own Canadian made Carrier with newer technologies (which would increase effeciency).  The government could get Irving involved, which would generate more jobs for citizens and help out the Canadian economy.  Canada, really needs to get off the idea of buying all its military equipment from the warehouses of used-equipment from era‘s long past which help pay for the other country‘s newer equipment.

    :mg:


----------



## Korus (30 May 2003)

Didn‘t we try that with the Halifax class frigates? The plan was to produce them for foreign countries, but that hasn‘t happened.

I like the idea of Canada making it‘s own equipment to boost the economy, but it creates the problem of lowering standards so that a Canadian product can win the bid. It happened with Western Star and the LSVW, and look what we‘re stuck with.


----------



## Thaedes (30 May 2003)

It‘s unfortunate but there really isn‘t any patriotism in big business and politics, or at least in Canada anyways.

I‘m not saying it wouldn‘t be tough and difficult to do it with a Carrier, but since when has that ever been an impediment for the Canadian military.  Maybe for the bueacrats in politics but all they need is one PM willing to go with the idea, and the military to organize and we could have soom real nice equipment.  Unfortunately, that too seems like a pipedream.


----------



## Bert (30 May 2003)

Canadian carriers eh?  They would provide some interesting deployment solutions but would also offer alot of problems.

A majority of peacekeeping or peacemaking mission are close to a coast or can be supplied from a coast.  A carrier could transport a military force, some of its inital supplies, aircraft, supplies for the aircraft, ground equipment,and command and control.  Instead of borrowing or using other nations air transport or supply chain, Canada then could deploy, support and manage its own force for a time.  Perhaps in that way the force could be more effective.

The problem is carriers are nice big targets that need supplies,air and sea defence, and its own battle group (big cost).  A few missiles lauched from an African coast or a torpedo for example might make a bad day worse.  It would mean a definite expansion of the navy, air force, and the land force in which to support.  

I can‘t see the current government or the next for that matter considering this.  It is worth speculating though how and where Canada and its military fits in the world.


----------



## Thaedes (30 May 2003)

The real unfortunate thing is, that it would take another war of the scale of a world war before Canada would really increase the size and funding of its military.  Perhaps that is just as well, since the value of increased military size and weapons has no value next to the countless lives likely to be lost in such a conflict.  

We as Canadian‘s have to face the fact that our military is modernizing, and that word is very potent and very vague.  Traditionally one looks at that word and assumes modernization implies upgrading of military vehicles, weapons, equipment, supplies etc.  However, in the near future modernization for Canada‘s military will be more of restructuring, redesigning the function and purpose of it.  Does Canada need an army capable of mass operations sizes?  No, not really.  With the proliferation of nuclear arms in the world, Canada is quickly finding itself far from a world power and as such less of a formidable opponent and less of a target.  Also, the increase of unconventional warfare is really on the rise, a single suiside bomber can be just as effective as a company of men.

We must also consider what role we want Canada to play in the world theatre.  Do we want to be an aggressive militant police force such as the US?  Not likely, and even if we did we simply don‘t have the human resources to generate and maintain such a force.  Look at the demographics people, the State of California has a great population then all of Canada.  Mexico city has roughly the population of 2/3‘s of all of Canada.  Even to double the amount of people in the CF‘s we‘d be vastly out numbered, and outfunded by larger nations.

What roles has Canada been playing?  Peace keepers, and we will need to continue to occupy this roll in the world theatre.  It helps insure our respectability in the eyes of our brethren nations, it helps insure our own safety.  

Just some thoughts anyways.


----------



## Armymedic (31 May 2003)

While Carriers may not be the way to go, we definately need some form of strategic lift capability both in AC and ships. A RoRo (Roll on Roll off) ship and a few C-17‘s would help us out nicely....

RoRo ship with Ocean capabilities, like a large ferry. Come to think of it doesn‘t BC have some ferrie it doesn‘t want anymore...


----------



## onecat (31 May 2003)

"RoRo ship with Ocean capabilities, like a large ferry. Come to think of it doesn‘t BC have some ferrie it doesn‘t want anymore..."

Good idea....its just too bad the BC gov‘t sold them for 19 miliion.... and they only like 300 milion to build.  Man what happens to people in gov‘t...do they lose they common sence.  No wait a minute... they must likely sold them to a friend; just the Tories did here in Ontario with HWY407.

But to get back to the topic of CV... I think we only need one if we plan on changing from a country that has no military to a mid power like France or Spain.  Having one would allow Canada to do a lot of good things; but the cost would be just so high.  I think a Helicopter carrier would be better suited to our needs. But again only if actually decided on having a much larger CF and bigger budget.  At least 25 billion, as the training costs would be huge and we would need two as you just can‘t have one on the east coast.  There needs to equal forces on both sides of the country.


----------



## Redneck052 (31 May 2003)

Why is it that once people start to talk about revitalizing Canadas military, they continously begin by stating that we need ‘big ticket‘ items.  Air Craft Carriers, updated F18‘s, new Tanks, and of course you cannot forget the computers that everybody says they need.

What about the troops, airmen, and the sailors.  We start our careers beliving what we are doing is ‘noble‘.  So, we move in to our PMQ‘s with our families, and enter the PMQ trap.  The Q‘s cost so much with rent, gas and hydro that there is NO chance to save any money to get a house.  So here you sit in a house that has paid for itself at least 50-60 years ago.  With the same insulation of then, paying so-called ‘MARKET VALUE‘, there are few civies that would accept paying the amount that we pay for waht you get.  (Thanks CFHA for screwing us)

What should happen to revitalize the military?  Increase the pay incentives for the NCMs.  Increase Cpl from 4 to 8 incentives, and Mcpl from 4 to 6.  This would put some more money into the people that need the most help, the NCMs.  The increase in the amount of incentives would closer reflect the length of time one spends at a particular rank.  In doing this, would raise the ‘pay-bar‘ for all NCMs above Pte.

I could see the people at CFHA rubbing their hands, thinking "Yes, more money".... well, DISBAND them!  Return the housing back to the Military..... it worked better that way anyways.

Once the troops are taken care of, and there is a man power base, then get the ‘big ticket‘ items...you‘ll have happy troops to work them.

Just a thought!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (1 Jun 2003)

Some corporals and master corporals spend way too much money on liquor and tobacco, too, but I digress...

The military quarters in Calgary were a god-awful joke.  They have recently turned the former quarters (now owned by civvies after the move of the base to Edmonton) into the most gorgeous little neighbourhood, complete with monuments to regiments and battles, English style rowhouses, and the quaint name "Garrison Woods".  I think it is the neighbourhood I would most like to live in some day.

It‘s embarrassing to think on the clapboard monstrosities that the troops were forced to live in.

Why they didn‘t do that when ...well, I know why, money, but...

you have an excellent point.  Decent housing would be much more of an incentive than an aircraft carrier we don‘t need.


----------



## onecat (1 Jun 2003)

I have to agree, everyone desent housing and at a rate you can afford.  It shouldn‘t be at market rates, as being in the Forces should give something special, and so what of the civi off the street is paying more. Its a different story when your in the Forces, you move often and you need to live close if not on the base.

Everyone wants big ticket items and thinking that they will get people to join.... and yes some will get more people in; but the housing sucks and the benefits and crap who will stay in. I‘m a single guy and I hope they have actual places for us.  I can handle sharing place during training, but I already have an apartemnt and thought of spending the next 3 years or more in a room with 4 guys is not my cup of tea.  Does anyone know what its like for a single guy as far as housing goes?

But back to the main point.... lets get the Forces back to a high standrad before addiing things that might be affordable. even with a 20 billion budget they should take a few years before buy the big stuff and just get the training done, hire more people.... and get them kit. Buy more G-wagons...  get the reserves the money they need etc.... and then but new tanks.  They do need Helos fats though... and heavy lift.


----------



## Armymedic (1 Jun 2003)

Redneck052 does make a good point...

People make a military, such said kit and technology makes it effective. But if you don‘t have a whole bunch of quality people who do a **** fine job even something as basic as a rifle is totally inefective. We Canadian soldiers have never had the best kit, but why are we still considered the best regular professional soldiers in the world?

Give us good kit? yes. But lets also fill the unit to thier ‘wartime‘ stregnths so that we can do all those things the gov‘t wants us to do.

  :fifty:


----------



## Armymedic (1 Jun 2003)

Oh by the way, the largest portion of the defence budget goes to payroll...(all payrolls, civilians included)

chew on that


----------



## Redneck052 (4 Jun 2003)

Payroll... I foregot about that.

But then again, how could I foreget were most of the budget goes.  Yes the majority of the budget goes towards paying all of us.  You have got to pay the troops, and you should pay them well.  If you don‘t, Canada would be a military ‘power‘ of officers and bureaucrats.  Suffling and re-shuffling their paper work of imaginary soldiers on a map, while sitting at a $500 desk in Ottawa.

Get rid of some of the bureaucrats out of DND, and for heavens sake, have them STOP running $100,000+ projects and reports of what we want our logo to look like, or whether we like water or Gatorade after our ruck marches.

Have the Col.s and above on an actual pay scale (currently they write their own salary--According to Scot Taylor).

But most importamtly, DND, Canada, or the Government need to realize, understand, or even care that it is us, the low man on the tottumpole that do the real work. We are the ones that run the ships, the planes, the tanks, the radios, fix the vehicles, clothe the soldiers, we are the ones that make it possible for you to complain about this post over DND lines and computers. We are the ones that work, bleed, and fight for this great country.  We are the ones that tell people of our love for Canada.  We are the ones that say to our wives, "Sorry sweetheart, we can‘t go home to see your family this Christmas, because CFHA screwed us out of another $100 again this year."  And just think, another $100, and they never touch the house for over three years.....(for those of you that are keeping score...$300 increase in three years!)

  :fifty:


----------



## Infanteer (9 Jun 2003)

As much as I hate to say it, the US military pay scale is the easiest thing to understand.  Every year is a grade on the vertical scale, and every rank is a grade on the horizontal scale (or vice versa).  More time in, more pay. Higher rank, more pay.  Everything is covered from a first year private to a four-star general with 30 years of service.  Easy peezy.

As much as I hate to admit it, I think I agree with Scott Taylor when he said that the CF doesn‘t need a budget increase just yet because you can‘t fix a leaky hose by pumping more water through it.  I still don‘t understand why this military has 140 some odd officers sitting at Colonel (Captain) and above.  Have you read the promotions section of the Maple Leaf and seen what these guys are responsible for?  Considering we have three Brigades in the Army, I don‘t see why we need more than 3 Colonels and one or two Generals.


----------



## Redneck052 (9 Jun 2003)

He screwed up......


...quick promote that man!


----------

