# Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy



## Edward Campbell (21 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I agree, this, rather than CF-18s in Iraq ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And if we're going to go that route we will, likely, need more of this sort of thing, sooner rather than later, ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 and this 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 and even this 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




          ... and less or fewer of these:

               
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  and this  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




                     ... all of which might have a modest, short to medium term impact on this, giving the new government some breathing space to _think_ (study, evaluate, consider) what it _wants_ and _needs_ for the defence of Canada and its vital interests around the world.


----------



## FSTO (21 Oct 2015)

One thing that I agreed with the NDP election proposal was the White Paper. We are in DESPERATE need of one.


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Oct 2015)

Defense spending has never been good under previous Liberal governments.so its back to the future I am afraid.


----------



## Baz (21 Oct 2015)

FSTO said:
			
		

> One thing that I agreed with the NDP election proposal was the White Paper. We are in DESPERATE need of one.



Completely concur, and I'd like to have National involvement in such an exercise (but I doubt either will occur).

Agree with your needs, ERC, with a couple of notes:
- need BHS in addition to JSS (actually, turn JSS into true AORs and make the BHS the flag); 2 X Canberra + 2 X Berlin would be my choice.
- need littoral maneuver escorts; maybe something like Absalons or UK Global Combat Ships.  Full VLS up to and including Tomahawk and Standard; all the same so no Destroyers... at least 12.
- not Growlers, but a credible NORAD fighter with possibly some strike capability (what Leslie said election night).  That might be F-35's, maybe some F-35's (including some STOVL?) and something else for NORAD, or maybe something like Superhornets / F-15SEs?
- a Joint Battle Management Aircraft to replace the Aurora (which makes it less capable for ASW, but c'est la vie).  Capable of Air, Maritime, and Air-Ground Battle Management.  Kinda of what Wedgetail could be...
- UAVs of all sizes: Polar Hawke, and swarms for the Joint Battle Management to control.

Don't think we are getting any of that... They won't cut too deep in my opinion, but it will be more of the same trundling along.  No vision will be executed in Canada until we are forced into it...


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Oct 2015)

Why would we need STOVL F-35s? If Trudeau cancels the F-35A, we're sure as heck not getting F-35Bs.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (21 Oct 2015)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Defense spending has never been good under previous Liberal governments.so its back to the future I am afraid.



It is all relative. Most of our major equipment was last bought by Trudeau the Elder. Our F-18s, Destroyer(s) (not sure I can use plural anymore as I think all but one has been decommissioned), Frigates (designed and approved, but not fully purchased at that point), and our Leopard 1s. 

I know he wouldn't have wanted to spend that money, but he did as it needed to be done. In fact our defence spending has been in decline since Pearson (a Liberal), and if you look at the charts, Harper was spending the same amount as the previous Liberal Government by the end of 2013. 

I am not saying I like either, just pointing out that it hasn't been all bad under the Liberals (though the last batch did leave a pretty bad taste in my mouth in regards to defence spending).


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Oct 2015)

A few reference points to help guide the discussion ....


			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> So, a few links and quotes about the Liberal Party's military commitments:
> 
> 
> https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/report-on-transformation/
> ...





			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Quick highlights (the words, before looking over the books in detail, anyway):
> 
> "We will maintain current National Defence spending levels, including current planned increases."
> "We will renew Canada’s commitment to peacekeeping operations."
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Oct 2015)

Like Baz I don't foresee any major cuts ~ not like under Prime Ministers Pierre Trudeau in the 1970s or Chrétien in the 1990s, but, nor do I see much prospect for growth.

I think (just _hope_?) there will be come increase in ships, if only for the job creation _thingy_. Keeping jobs in Davie and Irving might take some of the sting away from a _possible_, potentially even _probable_, cancellation of the F-35 (and maybe even pry some Quebec City area seats away from the Conservatives) and reward the people who helped give the LPC a sweep in Atlantic Canada.

Redirecting the RCAF away from combat operations in the Middle East may make the F-35 decision less "newsworthy."

Redirecting the Army (and RCAF) towards traditional, baby-blue beret style _peacekeeping_ will pacify one part of the Liberal base and ease some spending pressures.

The Liberals need time, I think, to _think_ about foreign and defence policies. A _White Paper_ _can_ be the sort of _thinking_ exercise one wants, but it can also raise expectations and push the government into areas it might rather avoid.

Reorganizing DND, along the lines of LGen (Ret'd) Leslie's _Transformation_ report, perhaps even being much more radical, might be another way to go ... think about the 1964 _White Paper_ and the fallout therefrom.


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Oct 2015)

One of his first decisions is to bail on the war against IS.Canada's 6 CF-18's are coming home.No more combat role for the CF.So no need to spend defense dollars on defense,lets spend it on Syrian refugee's or something. :


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Oct 2015)

Those jackets and sleeping bags won't buy themselves.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Oct 2015)

I foresee the Davie product getting the full ahead green light, a delay and then cancellation of the Berlins, followed by Davie getting another contract to convert another ship.


----------



## FSTO (21 Oct 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I foresee the Davie product getting the full ahead green light, a delay and then cancellation of the Berlins, followed by Davie getting another contract to convert another ship.



The problem with the Davie project is that it only has a flight deck and not a hangar.


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Oct 2015)

No, it has a hangar.  Have a look here:  http://projectresolve.ca/website/


----------



## FSTO (21 Oct 2015)

I see it.
They better have a cargo elevator from the stores deck to the flight deck. Or a ramp for forklifts to drive pallets from the jungle deck to the flight deck.
During OP TOUCAN we did 1 heavy jackstay from PRO. 99% of our dry UNREPS were done by VERTREP and it was a pain in the *** for us to open the soft eye patch and manouevre the forklift to lift the pallets through the patch on to the flight deck.
We watched with envy other AORs where the forklifts drove straight from the jungle deck to the flight deck to arrange the cargo.


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Oct 2015)

Good point, I didn't think of that... especially in light of the reduced crew size too.  We had a bastard of a time getting shoring up to the flight deck to vertrep the GUNSTEN HALL, after she was badly damaged in heavy seas off NC.  I had forgotten about that.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Good point, I didn't think of that... especially in light of the reduced crew size too.



Just get the entire Navy to work their overhead presses for a year, elevator and forklift no longer required!  ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Oct 2015)




----------



## jmt18325 (21 Oct 2015)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Defense spending has never been good under previous Liberal governments.so its back to the future I am afraid.



They have promised the exact same spending as the Conservatives.


----------



## FSTO (21 Oct 2015)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> They have promised the exact same spending as the Conservatives.


So not that great then.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Oct 2015)

For youz I have bridge to sell, yes?  8)

Davie is in an area they will wish to cultivate and they can still leave WSS some of the other contracts while passing on the AOR Lite* contracts to them. JT promises and plans will be hitting the reality rocks fairly soon. I can imagine his eyes when he gets the intelligence briefing.


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Oct 2015)

Colin P.:  And have Seaspan build two more icebreakers for CCG instead of Berlins--costs similar.

Mark
Ottaw


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (21 Oct 2015)

FSTO said:
			
		

> I see it.
> They better have a cargo elevator from the stores deck to the flight deck. Or a ramp for forklifts to drive pallets from the jungle deck to the flight deck.
> During OP TOUCAN we did 1 heavy jackstay from PRO. 99% of our dry UNREPS were done by VERTREP and it was a pain in the *** for us to open the soft eye patch and manouevre the forklift to lift the pallets through the patch on to the flight deck.
> We watched with envy other AORs where the forklifts drove straight from the jungle deck to the flight deck to arrange the cargo.



Then, I suggest you go to the Navy "AOR replacement and JSS" thread in these forum. Jollyjacktar put the Project Resolve website link there on October 19. 

Go to the link and click on the "Survey" button at the top. They are seeking input from actual AOR personnel on what they think should be addressed as improvements on the Protecteur class. I did not answer myself as my last tour in PRO was in 1981, when she was just a young girl and I have little to no recent experience with the class. But your comment above definitely ranks as both timely and useful. So, perhaps if you get it to  Davie, they will incorporate it in their design.


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Oct 2015)

FSTO said:
			
		

> So not that great then.



There was no better option available, so I took - as good as.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And if we're going to go that route we will, likely, need more of this sort of thing, sooner rather than later, ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If the Liberals did focus on the Logistics side of things that wouldn't be all bad....Nor would an emphasis on Light Infantry, Engineers, Medics and Sigs.


----------



## Baz (21 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Good point, I didn't think of that... especially in light of the reduced crew size too.  We had a ******* of a time getting shoring up to the flight deck to vertrep the GUNSTEN HALL, after she was badly damaged in heavy seas off NC.  I had forgotten about that.



Should also have some proper slinging gear for the helo, and in proper numbers on the ship so your not always having to ask for your net after every lift:
- pallet handling nets
- spreader bars
- lose item baskets
- large item slings (like vehicles)
- ...


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Oct 2015)

WRT the F35 - There is a work around 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Squadrons

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2013/may/23/130523-first-f35-pilot



> First Navy F35 pilot completes first month’s training
> 
> 23/05/2013
> The Royal Navy’s first pilot of its next-generation jump jet has said it will give the nation’s future carriers an unrivalled striking power. After a month flying the F35B Lightning II – the most advanced stealth fighter in the world – Lieutenant Commander Ian Tidball has given the aircraft a glowing testimonial.
> ...



Canada finds the pilots for NORAD aircraft......

Other thoughts- JUSTAS goes to Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness which contracts the unarmed service from a civilian supplier like MDA's Geospatial Services International.  

Expeditionary effort could be Canadian pilots in ABCA seats or it could be Canadian helos.


----------



## FSTO (21 Oct 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Then, I suggest you go to the Navy "AOR replacement and JSS" thread in these forum. Jollyjacktar put the Project Resolve website link there on October 19.
> 
> Go to the link and click on the "Survey" button at the top. They are seeking input from actual AOR personnel on what they think should be addressed as improvements on the Protecteur class. I did not answer myself as my last tour in PRO was in 1981, when she was just a young girl and I have little to no recent experience with the class. But your comment above definitely ranks as both timely and useful. So, perhaps if you get it to  Davie, they will incorporate it in their design.



Thanks. Just finished it.


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Oct 2015)

Seeing as I've already done their survey, I used their contact form to quote you and add what I said in reply too.  So they'll get it twice then.  Maybe it will stick.   :nod:


----------



## FSTO (21 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Seeing as I've already done their survey, I used their contact form to quote you and add what I said in reply too.  So they'll get it twice then.  Maybe it will stick.   :nod:



I had to laugh at the part about "What was your highlights during your time in PRO".
I did not write anything because my CBTO was a c********r and made my life and the lives of my department a living hell during our deployment. He was the most obtuse, obstinate, self centred and manipulative SOB it was ever my misfortune to serve with.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Oct 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> If the Liberals did focus on the Logistics side of things that wouldn't be all bad....Nor would an emphasis on Light Infantry, Engineers, Medics and Sigs.



Why?

If you don't have a 'mission end', why dump money into Logistics first?  The job of logistics is to support the pointy end, or that is what I've thought over the last XX years.  I'm not saying Logistics are not important; they are extremely important but they have basically no function if there isn't a fighting force to support.

Right now we have DDGs that are past service life, no FWSAR replacement, hulls needed to begin the CPF replacement.  Christ, we can't even supply our VERY SMALL military with boots.

Funding and procurement needs to be balanced but if the scale tips slightly one way over the other, it should be on the "F Echelon" elements of the RCN, C Army and RCAF.   :2c:


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Oct 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> If you don't have a 'mission end', why dump money into Logistics first?  The job of logistics is to support the pointy end, or that is what I've thought over the last XX years.  I'm not saying Logistics are not important; they are extremely important but they have basically no function if there isn't a fighting force to support.
> 
> ...



Because the Logistics end of things are buggered?  No trucks - of any type?  No ability to move around the continent or off the continent? Machine guns falling apart?  Ability to procure weapons and mukluks not obvious?  Inability to get Water and POL and Beans, Bullets, and Bandages to the front end?  Inability to get troops to and from the front?  

That is not an unfounded opinion.  It is the strong sense that I get from reading these boards for the last 10 years.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Oct 2015)

Good points but I wonder how much of this is because of inefficiency outside the CAF/DND.  PWGSC.

Additionally, I thought you meant something else by the word logistics.  I'll also admit I have been away from anything Army for some years now (approaching 9 yrs) and wasn't aware things were quite that bad.  Or, I was aware of bits and pieces but failed to connect the dots into the big picture.

My most recent experience in an operational context opened my eyes on the ability of the CAF to supply items that in my line of work are 'no brainer - we must have extras of these on hand'.  Simple things like flashlights and flying gloves.  I do, however, have brand new mukluks in my B25 kit.  Not much use in the current op theatre.   ^-^


----------



## Navy_Pete (21 Oct 2015)

I desparately would like to see military procurement get rolled into a single departement.  We buy enough small things, and enough big things, that we already effectively have dedicated specialists.  The problem is now they answer to four different bosses.

There are about three layers of PWGSC between DND and the treasury board.  My experience was we 'draft' the TB submission, dumbing down highly technical details to simple terms, send it into the PW black hole for numerous revisions, we get it back, correct the things that are misleading or straight out incorrect, resubmit, and then wait for it to eventually get to someone at the TB secretariat to review it, put their own spin on it, and put it up to TB for approval. All of that happens with no direct communication to the PM that is actually responsible for the budget and timeline to some random bureaucrat, twice removed, who may or may not have any idea what you are doing.

Along the way, we already had to jump through numerous DND approval hoops, a number of joint DND/PW/Industry Canada hoops, individual PW and IC reviews, and all sorts of other shenanigans.

If you are lucky enough to get through all that, you get to look forward to years of trying to fight the bureaucracy to implement the project, where the good ideas club is constantly trying to inject new requirements that may or may not be in the contract (fully integrate with DRMIS!.... oh wait, DRMIS isn't ready, do something different, but still use DRMIS)  Gah!

So glad to be back in a ship.  Now I can complain that there are no widgets because the standing offer expired and the contract is stuck at IC undergoing a review for whether or not the new (but not yet developed) IRB policy applies or some other insanity.


----------



## Baz (21 Oct 2015)

F ech win battles, logistic Ian win wars.  The person who drove that home the best for me was a RCR LCol.

Logistics extend all the way back to 4th line, and include procurement, and it is broken.  Massively, totally broken.

We, like most other militaries,  used to have environments that were completely responsible for FG... weapon system procurement and personal generation.

Then we unified and put those supporting functions under the ADMs, which was bad enough.

Now we have PWGSC, which I doing the contractual piece.  But stuck in the middle we still have the ADMs.

FUBAR.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Oct 2015)

Then I guess we are far worse off than I realized.   How we fix the F, A and B echelons across the board is... (looking for thoughts from those who understand that beast).  NP made one suggestion above.

I am a tactical level oar-puller;  I would like to see I can get what I need to do my job in a timely manner from the system, not have to drive to the PX and spend $30 USD on a flashlight because I need one the next day IAW flying regs.  And because I have no option for a tactical one in the system.  White lights in windows aren't always a good idea.

You still have to be able to win the battles to win the war.


----------



## Navy_Pete (21 Oct 2015)

Baz said:
			
		

> F ech win battles, logistic Ian win wars.  The person who drove that home the best for me was a RCR LCol.
> 
> Logistics extend all the way back to 4th line, and include procurement, and it is broken.  Massively, totally broken.
> 
> ...



ADMs make a lot of sense when you have joint operations and common equipment.  Having three separate LCMMs for the same piece of kit is kind of dumb.


----------



## Baz (21 Oct 2015)

Common LCMMs for common equipment make sense.  ADM (Mat) is FUBAR, especially with the existence of PWGSC.

Power is where the money is... Pers has the most, ADM the next, and the environments somewhere way down the list.

Logistics win wars, but the ones at the top in Canada don't seem to care...


----------



## Ostrozac (21 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Redirecting the Army (and RCAF) towards traditional, baby-blue beret style _peacekeeping_ will pacify one part of the Liberal base and ease some spending pressures.



MONUSCO in the DR Congo and UNAMID in Sudan are, to my knowledge, the biggest blue beret operations in history, and they are pretty serious operations on the far end of anyone's logistics chain.

These are two South African Rooivalks serving with MONUSCO, note the rocket pods.






Blue beret peacekeeping isn't like Cyprus in the 80's. It grew up in Yugoslavia in the 90's, and has stayed there. Large scale Canadian participation in these missions will be expensive and manpower intensive, and there will be plenty of tours for everyone, if that's where our foreign policy is drifting. I'm not sure that it is -- I suspect that "peacekeeping" is a throw away line in some parts of the Liberal Party, and is code for the speaker not liking American-led wars, not evidence that the speaker is actually talking about large multiyear UN-led operations in Africa.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Oct 2015)

Ultimately, we need to understand how the powers that be think about defense (if they do at all). Nonsensical pronouncements like replacing bombing and boots on the ground with aid distribution shows an astonishing lack of understanding of how the world works (you are going to be able to distribute jack s*** if you don't control the ground, and of course you need the logistical chain going all the way back to warehouses in Canada to get the goods from point a to b in the first place). And cancellation of the CF-35 kills the ability of the CF to learn and practice "network node" forms of warfare for a generation or more, making us increasingly inoperable with our allies and unable to effectively defend against such forms of warfare by peer enemies.

I'm rather afraid that most of the "thinking" about defense will be on the same level as above, and while we may wish for a White Paper, it may be like the one which the Sun King delivered back in 1971 (and the one Edward detests so much).

Be careful what you wish for......


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Oct 2015)

Ostrozac: Indeed:



> US-Backed UN “Killer Peacekeeping”: Would Canadians Support Taking Substantial Part?
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/09/28/mark-collins-us-backed-un-killer-peacekeeping-would-canadians-support-taking-substantial-part/



Weasel-way to pretend?
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/mark-collins-canadian-election-isis-the-f-35-justin-trudeau-and-potus/comment-page-1/#comment-14130

Check NDP's numbers when platforming during campaign:



> NDP Defence Platform Leak: Real Boots for UN Peacekeeping (but do they know facts?)
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/10/07/mark-collins-ndp-defence-platform-leak-real-boots-for-un-peacekeeping-but-do-they-know-facts/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Oct 2015)

Well, we can always dump the aid and let local militants take charge of distribution.


----------



## Altair (22 Oct 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Ultimately, we need to understand how the powers that be think about defense (if they do at all). Nonsensical pronouncements like replacing bombing and boots on the ground with aid distribution shows an astonishing lack of understanding of how the world works (you are going to be able to distribute jack s*** if you don't control the ground, and of course you need the logistical chain going all the way back to warehouses in Canada to get the goods from point a to b in the first place). And cancellation of the CF-35 kills the ability of the CF to learn and practice "network node" forms of warfare for a generation or more, making us increasingly inoperable with our allies and unable to effectively defend against such forms of warfare by peer enemies.
> 
> I'm rather afraid that most of the "thinking" about defense will be on the same level as above, and while we may wish for a White Paper, it may be like the one which the Sun King delivered back in 1971 (and the one Edward detests so much).
> 
> Be careful what you wish for......


yes, I'm sure Europe is falling way behind as well then.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Oct 2015)

Aside from being an Army Sigs Pte " fresh out of basic" is there something else in your resume that adds value and credibility to your input?


----------



## Altair (22 Oct 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Aside from being an Army Sigs Pte " fresh out of basic" is there something else in your resume that adds value and credibility to your input?


Logic? Also, haven't updated that since, well, when I was fresh out of basic.

If Europe can operate with American fighters without falling behind, I don't see why canada would if we picked up a European fighter.

Or you can continue to question me on my background, but I can assure you that I'm not that interesting.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Oct 2015)

I just like to know who has an opinion, vice an informed and/or experience-based opinion.  Lots of folks in green DEU think the air force is simpler than it is;  I was one of them  not all that many years ago.  Now having operated in a coalition environment and joint environment in a 3D battlespace maritime and overland, I "get" why air force mission element types need to be able to run with the horses.


----------



## Baz (22 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> If Europe can operate with American fighters without falling behind, I don't see why canada would if we picked up a European fighter.



What forms my opinion:
- recently retired after 26 years in uniform
- overall specialized in Tactical systems
- bi-national planning group in CSprings 
- surveillance officer at NATO AGSIO
- targeting staff officer at SHAPE  J2 ISTAR branch

I've said this before: in my opinion, if we want to do expeditionary air, then the only game in town is the F-35.

In Libya, we were a player, for reasons more than just the 6 pack.  Without the F-35 those reasons may not sustain.

Most European countries *are* falling behind.

Big caveat though: don't listen to the Air Forces of the world about the long term effectiveness of bombing campaigns alone.  They have almost always been tactical successes, operational washes, and strategic failures by themselves; ie without follow on action.  My opinion is that is happening against ISIS, backed up by credible sources.

So, I'll say it again: does the cost of expeditionary air make it worthwhile?  That is a question only the nation can answer, and the government represents the nation, for better or worse.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Oct 2015)

Altair, the modalities of warfare have expanded so dramatically even in just the last 10 years that anyone who is serious about defense realizes that *we* need vastly expanded capabilities, not the cancellation of cutting edge technologies. Consider in a different context that in the 1980's we had the ability to defend ground forces against incoming aircraft and PGM's using ADATS/Skyguard; a capability that folded it's tent and was retired in the 1990's and never renewed. How easy do you think it would be to revive GBAD expertise and re acquire the technologies needed for the expanded C-RAM (Counter Rockets, Artillery & Missiles) role from scratch if rocket attacks against deployed NATO/CF forces in Ukraine or Syria were to take place? 

Network node devices like the CF-35 are more than just shiny aircraft; their sensors and capabilities can be used to control all kinds of other capabilities, leveraging everything that we have now and could get in the future. No network nodes, no leverage. This affects all services, not just the RCAF. The very limited and short term thinking which characterized Liberal defense pronouncements isn't just detrimental to the CF in a near peer environment (and like it or not, hot spots like Ukraine, Syria or the South China Sea _are_ "Near Peer" environments), but will also have a very negative impact when applied to the mythical "Blue Beret" missions. How do you think a handful of CF service members deployed in destroyed states can leverage _their_ small numbers and influence in that environment? (While the CF-35 itself would not be useful on a mythical Blue Beret mission, having skill and knowledge of network warfare, as well as other tools to employ it will).


----------



## jollyjacktar (22 Oct 2015)

I agree, if this comes to pass, we, in the navy are euchered.  http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1318027-rumoured-top-pick-for-defence-minister-could-be-bad-news-for-halifax

Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.


> Rumoured top pick for defence minister could be bad news for Halifax
> 
> ANDREA GUNN Ottawa Bureau
> Published October 21, 2015 - 10:46pm
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Oct 2015)

DND - Canada's catspaw.

A 20 Billion Dollar Slush Fund where the government can hide funds in plain sight and find a spare billion or so any time it feels like it.

Its high profile diverts attention from the rest of the 300 Billion Dollars the government spends.  

It can use you and abuse you.

The money can be diverted to the environment, industrial support, bilingualism and biculturalism, healthcare (what else is SAR but an emergency ambulance service?) and all manner of social programs.  Occasionally it is used to further foreign relations.  And every now and then it is raided directly to fund Other Government Departments whose need is greater than yours.

Burning ammunition is an unnecessary waste of the Government's money.

Buttons and bows for all and saluting anvils to be issued.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Oct 2015)

Baz said:
			
		

> What forms my opinion:
> - recently retired after 26 years in uniform
> - overall specialized in Tactical systems
> - bi-national planning group in CSprings
> ...



Can Canada stay in the "Network game" with it's Auroras or even a new non-fighter aircraft?


----------



## FSTO (22 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I agree, if this comes to pass, we, in the navy are euchered.  http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1318027-rumoured-top-pick-for-defence-minister-could-be-bad-news-for-halifax
> 
> Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.



Wow, just F***ing wow. :facepalm:


----------



## Jed (22 Oct 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> DND - Canada's catspaw.
> 
> A 20 Billion Dollar Slush Fund where the government can hide funds in plain sight and find a spare billion or so any time it feels like it.
> 
> ...



 :goodpost:


----------



## GR66 (22 Oct 2015)

Baz said:
			
		

> So, I'll say it again: does the cost of expeditionary air make it worthwhile?  That is a question only the nation can answer, and the government represents the nation, for better or worse.



The question is are the full and real costs and values being clearly communicated to the people in government making that decision?  If the only cost they are being presented is the price tag on a particular aircraft vs. a very general "capability" (i.e "we need a fighter jet to protect our airspace and drop bombs on bad guys when we need to"), then don't be surprised when the government chooses the cheapest option.

Who is standing up and telling the government decision makers that these are the specific capabilities we need and why they are important?  Even more critically, who is standing up and saying to them WAIT.  Don't make ANY decisions on what planes/ships/trucks/guns to buy until you provide us with a new Defence White Paper (and not just a shopping list like the CFDS...something that provides real expectations of what capabilities the government needs the CF to be able to provide the country). And make it clear to them what the costs and risks potentially result from their decisions.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I agree, if this comes to pass, we, in the navy are euchered.  http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1318027-rumoured-top-pick-for-defence-minister-could-be-bad-news-for-halifax
> 
> Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.



Completely agree with Jollyjacktar, and other critics of the Leslie Transformation report.

The single most important problem with that report IMHO is that Leslie wrote it singly from his narrow Army perspective, without any strategic understanding of the Canadian defence needs.

The national defence strategic perspective is that you build your defences from the inside out. In order of importance for Canada: (1) Defence of the National territory; (2) defence of the North-American Continent; (3) Fulfillment of our defence treaty obligations (Nato); and (4) Any other international commitment that we may see fit to undertake.

Now, wether we like it or not, (1) and (2) are Navy/Air Force dependant because Canada, and North-America, is an "Island" in terms of defence. Other than the Americans, nobody is coming over on foot or driving tanks/APCs. That means we must have a strong Navy and a Strong Air Force*. I am sorry to have to say this guys, but the Permanent Army of Canada is for the purposes of (3) and (4) only, which means it is expeditionary in nature, not a "defence" force primarily, the way continental European armies are, for instance. Leslie's report was trying to concentrate everything on supporting this Army function to the detriment of the other two - which for our own national defence needs would have been a disaster. Not surprisingly, his report was shelved.

* : I know that critics out there often harp on the fact that Canada's forces are "unbalanced" because we have a smaller Army than Air Force. But, in the Canadian context, I submit that this ought to be the case. First of all, only the Air Force can effect the surveillance and defence of our incredibly large and empty territory. Second of all, the most likely threat to this territory is from the air or from the sea. When it comes to the sea, today's navies (including Canada's) cannot operate without the support of the Air Force, again both in surveillance and strike modes. Finally, as our Army is expeditionary in nature, it needs the Air Force's strategic and tactical transport assistance, and in some cases its strike capability.When you add all that, you have a large Air Force, by necessity.


----------



## FSTO (22 Oct 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Completely agree with Jollyjacktar, and other critics of the Leslie Transformation report.
> 
> The single most important problem with that report IMHO is that Leslie wrote it singly from his narrow Army perspective, without any strategic understanding of the Canadian defence needs.
> 
> ...



 :goodpost:


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Oct 2015)

GR66 said:
			
		

> .... who is standing up and saying to them WAIT.  Don't make ANY decisions on what planes/ships/trucks/guns to buy until you provide us with a new Defence White Paper (and not just a shopping list like the CFDS...something that provides real expectations of what capabilities the government needs the CF to be able to provide the country). And make it clear to them what the costs and risks potentially result from their decisions.


Short answer:  nobody.

Gotta know what you want your military to do before figuring out _how_ it's going to do it and _what_ it needs to do it.  But that's just me, a fat old civilian fart talking ....


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Oct 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Completely agree with Jollyjacktar, and other critics of the Leslie Transformation report.
> 
> The single most important problem with that report IMHO is that Leslie wrote it singly from his narrow Army perspective, without any strategic understanding of the Canadian defence needs.
> 
> ...



It doesn't happen often OGBD - but I can't agree with you more.  Emphasis added.

Edit - with this note:  The Army as it is constructed.  The Army that meets the requirements of Lines 1 and 2 is Light, Dispersable and Adaptive - and still intimately tied to the Air Force.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Oct 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Can Canada stay in the "Network game" with it's Auroras or even a new non-fighter aircraft?



While it is possible to do so in something like an Aurora, due to the amount of room inside, consider _why_ the USAF is so desperate for the F-35: centralized network nodes like the AWACS are extremely vulnerable. A shoot down would be a disaster, but even a simple failure of electronics would cripple the entire system. A "mesh network" of distributed nodes (which is what a squadron of F-35's actually is, the routers are packaged inside supersonic jets) can cover a larger area, has fewer single point of failure nodes and can gracefully degrade as planes are lost, damaged or suffer electronic or mechanical breakdowns.

Having high performance aircraft as the nodes also gives much more flexibility; imagine a USAF strike package in 2025: there will be dozens of UCAV's carrying munitions and countermeasures with some F-35's hidden somewhere in the flock. Even if the enemy were to somehow burn through the layers of UCAV's, there are still full on jet fighters waiting inside capable of fighting and carrying on the mission on their own. A repurposed C-130 or Challenger full of electronics will not have these capabilities (and it is questionable they would have the performance to keep up with the UCAV flock anyway).

Much like the EH 101 debacle of the 1990's, the CF will lose or never gain critical capabilities that will be employed for decades to come in the pursuit of _very_ short term partisan advantage. This analysis also does not include the industrial or political benefits of having a high tech aerospace industry making cutting edge equipment or being able to back words with actions in the international arena.


----------



## Altair (22 Oct 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While it is possible to do so in something like an Aurora, due to the amount of room inside, consider _why_ the USAF is so desperate for the F-35: centralized network nodes like the AWACS are extremely vulnerable. A shoot down would be a disaster, but even a simple failure of electronics would cripple the entire system. A "mesh network" of distributed nodes (which is what a squadron of F-35's actually is, the routers are packaged inside supersonic jets) can cover a larger area, has fewer single point of failure nodes and can gracefully degrade as planes are lost, damaged or suffer electronic or mechanical breakdowns.
> 
> Having high performance aircraft as the nodes also gives much more flexibility; imagine a USAF strike package in 2025: there will be dozens of UCAV's carrying munitions and countermeasures with some F-35's hidden somewhere in the flock. Even if the enemy were to somehow burn through the layers of UCAV's, there are still full on jet fighters waiting inside capable of fighting and carrying on the mission on their own. A repurposed C-130 or Challenger full of electronics will not have these capabilities (and it is questionable they would have the performance to keep up with the UCAV flock anyway).
> 
> Much like the EH 101 debacle of the 1990's, the CF will lose or never gain critical capabilities that will be employed for decades to come in the pursuit of _very_ short term partisan advantage. This analysis also does not include the industrial or political benefits of having a high tech aerospace industry making cutting edge equipment or being able to back words with actions in the international arena.


I'm not saying that you're wrong, you are in fact very informative and you're doing a great job explaining the complexity of this to this simple green guy.

However,  with the way you are describing the F35 reminds me of how it was selected in the first place. The list of criteria that you seem to be talking about only seem to be contained in one plane.

It seem to me that it's unlikely that there isn't at least one suitable alternative to this aircraft,no? None that come even close to offering what you're talking about in the F35?  I'm no SME, naturally, but to my knowledge Europe is no technological laggard, their jets should have some sort of redeeming factors, no?


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Oct 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Short answer:  nobody.
> 
> Gotta know what you want your military to do before figuring out _how_ it's going to do it and _what_ it needs to do it.  But that's just me, a fat old civilian fart talking ....



We've lost our way. No one is giving us direction, and when that happens, people will make up their own direction, whether or not it's good for the country or CAF.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Oct 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While it is possible to do so in something like an Aurora, due to the amount of room inside, consider _why_ the USAF is so desperate for the F-35: centralized network nodes like the AWACS are extremely vulnerable. A shoot down would be a disaster, but even a simple failure of electronics would cripple the entire system. A "mesh network" of distributed nodes (which is what a squadron of F-35's actually is, the routers are packaged inside supersonic jets) can cover a larger area, has fewer single point of failure nodes and can gracefully degrade as planes are lost, damaged or suffer electronic or mechanical breakdowns.
> 
> Having high performance aircraft as the nodes also gives much more flexibility; imagine a USAF strike package in 2025: there will be dozens of UCAV's carrying munitions and countermeasures with some F-35's hidden somewhere in the flock. Even if the enemy were to somehow burn through the layers of UCAV's, there are still full on jet fighters waiting inside capable of fighting and carrying on the mission on their own. A repurposed C-130 or Challenger full of electronics will not have these capabilities (and it is questionable they would have the performance to keep up with the UCAV flock anyway).
> 
> Much like the EH 101 debacle of the 1990's, the CF will lose or never gain critical capabilities that will be employed for decades to come in the pursuit of _very_ short term partisan advantage. This analysis also does not include the industrial or political benefits of having a high tech aerospace industry making cutting edge equipment or being able to back words with actions in the international arena.



 :goodpost:  My  :2c: is a simple addition;  "don't put all your eggs in one basket".


----------



## YZT580 (22 Oct 2015)

Altair, I am not particularly an F35 fan as my posting record will attest.  I personally believe that a mixed fleet, with proper air to air squadrons are what is needed to defend our very large and almost empty country.  But they need guidance and the best aircraft to do that is probably the 35.  Mix a few of them in to direct the others and you have a very potent weapon.  

But we stand to lose a lot if we back out of the consortium.  We will lose business and investment and we will more importantly lose a very vital strategic capability.  Printed below is a statement by Bogdan reference our pending withdrawal.  When you read between the lines it bodes ill for our manufacturing sector and no temporary factory to build Eurofighters will compensate for the cash and no-how that we WILL lose.  Sorry it isn't in one of those posted and attested box things but those skills are outside of my current capabilities.  The article was posted in Defense News this a.m.

On Capitol Hill today, Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, JPO chief, said the remaining international partners would see a million-dollar increase in price per plane if Canada pulls out of the program. That country had planned to buy 65 F-35s.

“If any partner, or any service, moves airplanes to the right, takes airplanes out, the price of the airplane for all the other partners and all the other services goes up,” Bogdan told the House Armed Services subcommittee on tactical air and land forces on Wednesday.  “We have estimated the increase in price is 0.7 to 1 percent [or] about a million dollars a copy for everybody else.”

If Canada pulls its F-35 buy, there would be no impact to the development program, which ends in 2017, Bogdan stressed.  However, the international partners would be forced to absorb Canada’s 2.1 percent share in the cost of future sustainment and follow-on modernization, he said.

One unanswered question: If Canada pulls out of the F-35 program, what happens to the Canadian supply base, which has spent millions to help develop technology and components for the plane?

Bogdan said the JPO does not have a “set rule” to deal with this scenario, but said the international and industry partners should have a “discussion” about what to do with the Canadian companies building parts for the F-35.

“We do not have a set rule as to what happens to that industrial participation if a partner reduces airplanes, adds airplanes or leaves the program,” Bogdan said. “But it is my opinion that the remaining partners and our industry partners are going to have a discussion about what to do with all of the industry in Canada that is building parts for the airplane.”

However, Bogdan stressed that the JPO has not received any notification that Canada is prepared to pull out of the program.

Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau does not become prime minister until Nov. 4 and details about how he will proceed with the withdrawal from the F-35 program are still unclear. Asked about the impact on Canadian firms now building components for the F-35, a Liberal spokesman pointed to the party’s election platform that argues such companies could earn more work from an open competition for Canada's fighter jet replacement. That platform noted that under the F-35 program Canadian firms are not guaranteed work but under a Canadian-run competition they would be.


----------



## dimsum (22 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> It seem to me that it's unlikely that there isn't at least one suitable alternative to this aircraft,no? None that come even close to offering what you're talking about in the F35?  I'm no SME, naturally, but to my knowledge Europe is no technological laggard, their jets should have some sort of redeeming factors, no?



The Gripen NG, Rafale, Typhoon, even Super Hornet etc weren't built to be "servers in supersonic jets", as was mentioned.  They were also all designed in the 80s-90s, when technology and what could be done with a fighter-bomber was much more limited than now.

A simplified analogy would be like calling the F-35 an iPhone (or similar) and the rest early 2000s flip phones.  You can make calls with both, but you can only do Internet Banking (or check Facebook) with one of them.  Now imagine if all of your friends only communicated through Facebook - you'd be left out of the loop.


----------



## Rick Goebel (22 Oct 2015)

The Promoting International Peace and Security section of the Liberal platform document REALCHANGE says:

"We will recommit to supporting international peace operations with the United Nations, and will make our specialized capabilities – from mobile medical teams to engineering support to aircraft that can carry supplies and personnel – available on a case-by-case basis.

To help the UN respond more quickly to emerging and escalating conflicts, we will provide well-trained personnel that can be quickly deployed, including mission commanders, staff officers, and headquarters units."

Looks like an emphasis on support functions with no specific mention of Canadian pointy end contributions.  This would make a degree of sense since the majority of UN Peacekeeping appears to be concentrating in Africa and there seems to be a worldwide sense that Africans should do the bulk of the in contact work to avoid the appearance of colonialism.


----------



## Jed (22 Oct 2015)

Rick Goebel said:
			
		

> The Promoting International Peace and Security section of the Liberal platform document REALCHANGE says:
> 
> "We will recommit to supporting international peace operations with the United Nations, and will make our specialized capabilities – from mobile medical teams to engineering support to aircraft that can carry supplies and personnel – available on a case-by-case basis.
> 
> ...



That's all well and good but who is going to secure our own Canadian assets when we get deployed to all the world's cesspools? Be prepared for a bunch of Romeo Dallaire or Medak Pocket reruns as the blue helmets go in with target indicators on their back and BS Rules of Engagement or their security forces sourced from 3rd world nations.


----------



## dimsum (22 Oct 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> That's all well and good but who is going to secure our own Canadian assets when we get deployed to all the world's cesspools? Be prepared for a bunch of Romeo Dallaire or Medak Pocket reruns as the blue helmets go in with target indicators on their back and BS Rules of Engagement or their security forces sourced from 3rd world nations.



The silver lining (if that term can be applied at all) is that in this age of social media and 24/7 news coverage, something like the Medak Pocket will probably blow up on Twitter if Canadian military members are injured/killed, with the inevitable tough questions on Question Period and the like.  

It's a lot harder to hide/quash things these days.


----------



## MilEME09 (22 Oct 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> The silver lining (if that term can be applied at all) is that in this age of social media and 24/7 news coverage, something like the Medak Pocket will probably blow up on Twitter if Canadian military members are injured/killed, with the inevitable tough questions on Question Period and the like.
> 
> It's a lot harder to hide/quash things these days.



That won't be much comfort to those actually in theatre, but the point is there, social media will play a big role, not to mention a over zealous media presence would ensure everything is known.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Oct 2015)

Rick Goebel said:
			
		

> The Promoting International Peace and Security section of the Liberal platform document REALCHANGE says:
> 
> "We will recommit to supporting international peace operations with the United Nations, and will make our specialized capabilities – from mobile medical teams to engineering support to aircraft that can carry supplies and personnel – available on a case-by-case basis.
> 
> ...




This has been alluded to in this and other threads, but a case can be made _for_ the Liberal position:

     First: Canada, like almost every other nation, has a small handful of obvious national security objectives ~

          1. Assert and protect it's own sovereignty,

          2. Promote and protect its vital interests in the world by, _inter alia_, promoting and protecting international peace and security (preventing but, if that's impossible, helping to resolve conflicts), and

          3. Addressing situations likely to result in conflict before real conflict occurs.

     Second: Canada, like some other nations, has a small but important coterie of firm, traditional allies: America, Australia, Britain, Denmark, Netherlands, New Zealand and Norway. These are nations which have stood with us,
     through even some desperate times, which (unlike France) have never tried to drive wedges into our body politic, and which (unlike, say, Poland) have never turned their back on the _liberal_ West. Those allies expect us to do a
     fair share of the heavy lifting in the global security business, but not all of it. Our allies do not expect us to be "on side" with all of them on every single issue, but if we are "off side" with too many of them on too many issues then we
     should re-evaluate our positions. 

     Third: the main _force_ we want to use in defending our sovereignty and promoting our vital interests and in securing international peace is diplomacy, but we understand that diplomacy (soft power) only works when
     it is backed by a sufficiency of (but _just _enough) hard power which we have proved willing and able to use.

The military component for the assertion and protection of our sovereignty is, mainly, a Navy and RCAF task. Promoting and protecting our vital interests might involve _power projection_, the Navy's quintessential role, but it, and securing international peace and security, might also require Canada to deploy _expeditionary_ land and air forces either unilaterally, for low-intensity operations, or in conjunction with allies, for mid-intensity missions. 

One can start to develop a list of military capabilities from the above ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Oct 2015)

Is Trudeau a R2P Liberal?  (Genuine question in search of enlightenment, not bitter muck-raking.)


----------



## FSTO (22 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Is Trudeau a R2P Liberal?  (Genuine question in search of enlightenment, not bitter muck-raking.)



Do not know. I haven't seen Lloyd Axworthy (one of the pushers) on TV to extol its virtues.


----------



## Cloud Cover (22 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Is Trudeau a R2P Liberal?  (Genuine question in search of enlightenment, not bitter muck-raking.)



Does the Devil wear Prada? I suspect he hasn't been told (as of yet) where he stands on that, unless he somehow thinks it means Really2Pretty. 
If Bill Graham somehow ends up to do an advisory turn on the catwalk, yeah on the catwalk, yeah on the catwalk, JT might decide that he's not to sexy for CadPat.


----------



## cavalryman (22 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Is Trudeau a R2P Liberal?  (Genuine question in search of enlightenment, not bitter muck-raking.)


Search not for enlightenment.  If it is yours to have, it will come.  If it is Justin's to have, he'll not know it passed him by (and that's no muck).   ;D


----------



## safetysOff (22 Oct 2015)

The CF is going to decline with JT as PM unless something big comes up at the international stage, bigger than the middle east stuff going on now.  The CF will become just another portfolio he'll tuck underneath his environment & educational folders/initiatives.  But hey maybe he surprises people


----------



## a_majoor (23 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Is Trudeau a R2P Liberal?  (Genuine question in search of enlightenment, not bitter muck-raking.)



Based on his own words in the years prior to the campaign (one can assume words during the campaign were carefully vetted before being placed in his mouth), his view seems to be essentially the world will be better if we dispense teddy bears and humanitarian aid. Joking about the Russian invasion of Ukraine would indicate a lack of understanding of geopolitics. Thinking that running deficits is a good thing after a year of wall to wall coverage of the Greek debt crisis, or simply viewing the decade long decline of Ontario would indicate not paying attention to events in the real world.

If he _is_ an R2P Liberal, the disconnect between "cause" and "effect" leads me to believe any belief in R2P is more "virtue signalling" than any actual belief in the necessity or effectiveness of R2P in practice. (Anyone who believes that R2P is an actual real world doctrine probably understands the necessity of hard power to secure the ground for any actual protection to take place).


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Oct 2015)

safetysOff said:
			
		

> The CF is going to decline with JT as PM unless something big comes up at the international stage, bigger than the middle east stuff going on now.  The CF will become just another portfolio he'll tuck underneath his environment & educational folders/initiatives.  But hey maybe he surprises people



And how would you know this? Inside info?

I'll tell you this, Sunny Jim, the CAF has survived over 100 years with governments like this in charge.


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Oct 2015)

Today's Chronicle Herald Cartoon

Someone here at the office stated in response to the cartoon, "they voted them in and did it to themselves, screw em".


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Today's Chronicle Herald Cartoon
> 
> Someone here at the office stated in response to the cartoon, "they voted them in and did it to themselves, screw em".



Lol, people out East have never been the best at connecting the dots.  I'm saying this having spent the majority of my life out there.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Today's Chronicle Herald Cartoon
> 
> Someone here at the office stated in response to the cartoon, "they voted them in and did it to themselves, screw em".




Galatians 6:7


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 Oct 2015)

;D

2 Corinthians 9:6


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Oct 2015)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Lol, people out East have never been the best at connecting the dots.  I'm saying this having spent the majority of my life out there.



I am quite sure, having worked on the floor at FMF, that the majority of the workers voted Liberal.





			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Galatians 6:7



Yes, yes they have.





			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ;D
> 
> 2 Corinthians 9:6



That's because everyone else had their stamps already...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I am quite sure, having worked on the floor at FMF, that the majority of the workers voted Liberal.
> Yes, yes they have.



Yes they most certainly did but I'm sure they also forgot about the transformation report or never knew it existed in the first place.


----------



## Occam (23 Oct 2015)

This is all in response to the comments of an "expert" (quotes intentional) who is sought out far too often for this particular newspaper's own good.  

If you look at Leslie's Transformation Report, you'll find that Hansen is making a bunch of extrapolations based on a very small part of the report.  

The FMFs aren't going anywhere anytime soon.  One need only look at the KINGSTON class model of in-service support to know that the skills and resources offered by the FMFs are unlikely to be replaced.  I say that with full knowledge of all the quirks of doing business with the FMFs.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Oct 2015)

I don't think you should rely on "what makes sense" as method of interpreting what is about to happen to DND and the CF over the next few years.

Some of what is about to occur will be good for us; some of it- not so much.


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Oct 2015)

Yes, I believe the new minister will be feeding us a carrot in one hand and feeding us belt fed kok with the other hand.  As to what we'll be full of first, carrot or kok will be a matter of interest to many here no doubt, including myself.


----------



## Furniture (23 Oct 2015)

As a person partially on the outside of the whole RCN thing, I have to wonder how much real serviceability will be lost by making the fleet maintenance responsibility a job done by shipyard employees rather than public servants?

My understanding is it's not as if they would need to tender a contract for each individual job, it's just that the FMF role would be tendered out to shipyards who would have to compete to get the contract every so many years. We already send the ships away to the shipyards for refit as it is, would it matter that VSL guys are also working on the boat on the dockyard side too? Then the government isn't on the hook for hundreds of extra public service pensions and health plans yet the work still gets done.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 Oct 2015)

In other words, SKT, and to quote Dickens:

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only."

From "A Tale of Two Cities" (Halifax and Ottawa?)


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Oct 2015)

OGBD- well done, sir!

 ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Oct 2015)

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> As a person partially on the outside of the whole RCN thing, I have to wonder how much real serviceability will be lost by making the fleet maintenance responsibility a job done by shipyard employees rather than public servants?
> 
> My understanding is it's not as if they would need to tender a contract for each individual job, it's just that the FMF role would be tendered out to shipyards who would have to compete to get the contract every so many years. We already send the ships away to the shipyards for refit as it is, would it matter that VSL guys are also working on the boat on the dockyard side too? Then the government isn't on the hook for hundreds of extra public service pensions and health plans yet the work still gets done.



The problem can lay in that the major shipyards "will/should be" already very busy beavers fabricating the next generations of ships for the GoC.  It's not Speedy Muffler or Mr. Lube where you can just show up on short or no notice and get in and out in lickety split.  The shipyards have limited berthing space for one thing and finite resources in personnel and equipment for another.  Not such an easy proposition to take care of the grey beasts as it may be for a ground vehicle.  Quick turn around capability may very be lost and that could indeed have an adverse effect on operational capabilities.  It's a double edged sword, cutting back on one thing while desiring to retain another.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 Oct 2015)

Concur with Jollyjacktar here.

And here is a supplementary point: Right now, the Admiral (on either coast) can pick up the phone and tell FMF: "Hey! Get WINNIPEG to sea tomorrow morning NLT 10:00. Got It?" I don't think that would be possible with Shipyard, no matter how we word the contract.


----------



## Furniture (23 Oct 2015)

Ah.. My understanding of how it would be done is that FMF would be staffed by contractors rather than public servants. The dockyard facilities would remain in use, just a different boss paying the bills (with DND money).


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Oct 2015)

This battle, over who control third and fourth line, was fought and won by the Navy in the 1960s, again, to my 100% certain knowledge, in the 1980s and, I think, again, in the early 2000s. In each case it was abundantly clear ~ even to some really expert and really well "plugged in" _centralizing_ empire builders in Ottawa ~ that navies, including our navy, are different from armies and air forces and they do not mix well into a centrally _managed_ sphere, not even one as well managed as the old Air Materiel Command (until 1966) and after 1966 and until the 1980s, the CF Material Command.


----------



## FSTO (23 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This battle, over who control third and fourth line, was fought and won by the Navy in the 1960s, again, to my 100% certain knowledge, in the 1980s and, I think, again, in the early 2000s. In each case it was abundantly clear ~ even to some really expert and really well "plugged in" _centralizing_ empire builders in Ottawa ~ that navies, including our navy, are different from armies and air forces and they do not mix well into a centrally _managed_ sphere, not even one as well managed as the old Air Materiel Command (until 1966) and after 1966 and until the 1980s, the CF Material Command.



Cannot these people just leave well enough alone?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Oct 2015)

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> Ah.. My understanding of how it would be done is that FMF would be staffed by contractors rather than public servants. The dockyard facilities would remain in use, just a different boss paying the bills (with DND money).



That is my understanding, too. I am just enjoying the dawning realization at UNDE that maybe Harper wasn't so bad....


----------



## Occam (23 Oct 2015)

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> Ah.. My understanding of how it would be done is that FMF would be staffed by contractors rather than public servants. The dockyard facilities would remain in use, just a different boss paying the bills (with DND money).



That's essentially how it works for the KINGSTON class.  SNC-Lavalin is the In-Service Support Contractor for the class.  Ask anyone in a navy blue uniform how that works out.  The FMFs still get a lot of business from the class, despite the fact that the ISSC is supposed to be handling it all.  Why?  Because the FMFs already have the experience and knowledge to do the work now in a lot of cases, as opposed to having to ramp up an outside org to learn how to do it.


----------



## Lumber (23 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Yes, I believe the new minister will be feeding us a carrot in one hand and feeding us belt fed kok  with the other hand.  As to what we'll be full of first, carrot or kok  will be a matter of interest to many here no doubt, including myself.



Is there some Milnet guideline that says you can use "innappropriate" language as long as it is spelt differently? Censoreship is bullshit, just spell it out! We all know what you meant.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And here is a supplementary point: Right now, the Admiral (on either coast) can pick up the phone and tell FMF: "Hey! Get WINNIPEG to sea tomorrow morning NLT 10:00. Got It?" I don't think that would be possible with Shipyard, no matter how we word the contract.



Twice I've been on ship (and on watch...) when we lost Port MLO conducting Main Prop trials and had to limp back to harbour on the Stbd shaft. FMF was waiting for us as soon as we came alongside, got us back out to sea as fast as possible (roughly 36-48 hrs both times). 

I've met some extremely lazy FMF workers, and had to deal with some of the most rediculous safety regulations when dealing with FMF, but for the most part, I've been very impressed with the speed and dedication with which they do their work (most of them).

Now, if you can maintain that capability, and just swap them out with private contractors, then I'm all for it. But if we have to schedule time over at a third party facility IOT get repairs like the ones I mentioned above, then you can kiss our Operational resiliency good-bye.


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Oct 2015)

If people are so hot and horny to replace the civilian workers at FMF with another workforce that is able to turn to when ordered, then it is time to reactivate the Fleet Maintenance Group that was stood down in the 90's.  Sailors are salary and FMG, when operational, was highly effective and would kick the ass of _any_ outside contractor you care to mention.  As I understand, it was in many respects more effective than FMF and this played a major role in it's eventual demise.


----------



## Jed (23 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> If people are so hot and horny to replace the civilian workers at FMF with another workforce that is able to turn to when ordered, then it is time to reactivate the Fleet Maintenance Group that was stood down in the 90's.  Sailors are salary and FMG, when operational, was highly effective and would kick the ass of _any_ outside contractor you care to mention.  As I understand, it was in many respects more effective than FMF and this played a major role in it's eventual demise.



Funny how that is. When we have our quality troops / sailors working in one cohesive force under the arguably best leadership, can be effective and efficient. Everybody speaking the same working language and obeying the same rules with no middle management interference (ala union bosses or contractor oversite) muddying the waters.

Too bad it is so darn expensive. I guess quality costs more.


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Oct 2015)

If I have the right end of the stick with regard to FMG, it was compeditive with FMF if not cheaper/faster/smarter (sort of like Steve Austin...) and would regularly take work from FMF.  The Unions didn't like being muscled out by untermench such as hairybags and a subsequently something had to give.  This was, however, before my time with the navy and what I've posted above is what I am told happened by those I know who were happily posted to FMG back in the day.  

The quality and speed of delivery of FMG was of the highest quality and for the sailors an excellent place to polish skills they then took back with them to sea, to the great benefit of their respective ships.  It would be a daunting task to raise this Phoenix from the ashes once more as a great deal of the knowledge base that was there has retired since then.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Is there some Milnet guideline that says you can use "innapropriate" language as long as it is spelt differently? Censoreship is bullshit, just spell it out! We all know what you meant.



If you read the Guidelines, no there isn't. If you don't like 'inappropriate' language, you can set the filter in your profile settings.

---Staff---


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Oct 2015)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Cannot these people just leave well enough alone?



Note the timeline FSTO.  Every 20 years ..... or every generation.

Nobody reads history and every generation invents sex.

Samuel Pepys's problems were no different than Jason Kenney's or the new guy's.


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Oct 2015)

Simply put, no major Canadian political party has a defence "policy"; they have postures, along with varying shopping lists, and an aversion shared by all to any loss of Canadian life and by two parties to killing anyone at all:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/mark-collins-new-canadian-liberal-governments-defence-policy-how-soft-part-2/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (26 Oct 2015)

Problem is, I think the Liberals are still stuck in the early 70's:

From Hair:

"When the moon is in the seventh house, and Jupiter lines with Mars, then peace will guide the planet and love will steer the stars... This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius"

When they should have at least evolved to the early 80's:

From ABBA:

"Let's not look the other way, taking a chance, for if the bugler starts to play, we too must dance."

 ;D


----------



## Cloud Cover (26 Oct 2015)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> .... and an aversion shared by all to any loss of Canadian life and by two parties to killing anyone at all:
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/mark-collins-new-canadian-liberal-governments-defence-policy-how-soft-part-2/



.... an admirable if somewhat unrealistic state affairs since it is the military who do most of the killing, and the dying is often shared by military and civilian alike, often disproportionately. 

Let the "Fortunate Son" go down this "silver spoon in hand" path of flowers. It leads to blue berets which often morph to green and tan anyway (R2P).  If a Canadian service person is killed or injured because he/she is outgunned or inadequately armoured, then the above stated aversion principle will demonstrate the flaw in the logic. 

This is a majority democratically elected government, one cannot change the course they are on because they believe very strongly that they have the support to go down this path.  And the facts may show they do have such support right up until the dying starts again, at which point both the  opposition and the military leadership will have no choice but to stand up to the concept of demilitarization. That last point was ongoing under Harper, I believe the only difference between him and the (Prime) Minister of Marihuana is how quickly it will happen.


----------



## FSTO (27 Oct 2015)

A letter to the editor on the East Coast regarding Mr Leslie

http://thechronicleherald.ca/letters/1318896-reader%E2%80%99s-corner-anybody-but-andy-leslie-at-dnd


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (27 Oct 2015)

FSTO said:
			
		

> A letter to the editor on the East Coast regarding Mr Leslie
> 
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/letters/1318896-reader%E2%80%99s-corner-anybody-but-andy-leslie-at-dnd



That's quite a scathing review... and 100% accurate. Although the prospect of a FRP for officers puts a smile on my face


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Oct 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> That's quite a scathing review... and 100% accurate. Although the prospect of a FRP for officers puts a smile on my face



FRP ?  That's an acronym allot of people have been waiting for... Have any proof of this ?


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Oct 2015)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> .... an admirable if somewhat unrealistic state affairs since it is the military who do most of the killing, and the dying is often shared by military and civilian alike, often disproportionately.
> 
> Let the "Fortunate Son" go down this "silver spoon in hand" path of flowers. It leads to blue berets which often morph to green and tan anyway (R2P).  If a Canadian service person is killed or injured because he/she is outgunned or inadequately armoured, then the above stated aversion principle will demonstrate the flaw in the logic.
> 
> This is a majority democratically elected government, one cannot change the course they are on because they believe very strongly that they have the support to go down this path.  And the facts may show they do have such support right up until the dying starts again, at which point both the  opposition and the military leadership will have no choice but to stand up to the concept of demilitarization. That last point was ongoing under Harper, I believe the only difference between him and the (Prime) Minister of Marihuana is how quickly it will happen.



I think Harper lost the will for the fight (domestically and internationally) somewhere between the years 2006 and 2010.

Parliament wouldn't stand for Afghanistan past 2011.
Media beating him up over handling of prisoners.
RCAF hangs him out to dry over the CF-35.
PWGSC shuts down MSVS programme
Leslie Report (good or bad) 
Transformation order to MND and CDS disregarded
CCV on again off again
TAPV must have / useless

You lot want to find someone to blame - check the mirror.


----------



## blacktriangle (27 Oct 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> That's quite a scathing review... and 100% accurate. Although the prospect of a FRP for officers puts a smile on my face



We have our fair share of NCM's that should be shown the door as well...

I think we'd be better off as a smaller, more agile, and better trained/equipped force. Unfortunately I only see "smaller" being on the table of options. 

Bring on FRP I guess.


----------



## CountDC (27 Oct 2015)

and why officers for FRP?  There are more of us that would certainly consider FRP if the package was right.  Bring it on. ;D


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Oct 2015)

CountDC said:
			
		

> and why officers for FRP?  There are more of us that would certainly consider FRP if the package was right.  Bring it on. ;D



What he said.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Oct 2015)

Why FRP for officers?  Because we were ordered to reduce the ratio of officers to NCMs in 1997 and never did it.  We're at about 1:3 officers to NCMs in the Reg F now; that's ridiculous.  We have created occupations which can spend an entire career on staff in Ottawa.  With over 5000 senior officers in a trained strength of about 60K, there's something seriously wrong in our structure - remember, every senior officer would be on the sunshine list in Ontario (pay of $100K+).

Personally, though, I'd just use TOS and gating and other tools rather than FRP.  Don't offer incentives; show the door.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Oct 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Personally, though, I'd just use TOS and gating and other tools rather than FRP.  Don't offer incentives; show the door.



Absolutely agree. Can start with "You're posted to 1/2/5 CMBG. Release if you're not happy, you've been in Ottawa 15 years."

What is gating? Or did I just define it above?


----------



## dimsum (27 Oct 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Why FRP for officers?  Because we were ordered to reduce the ratio of officers to NCMs in 1997 and never did it.  We're at about 1:3 officers to NCMs in the Reg F now; that's ridiculous.  *We have created occupations which can spend an entire career on staff in Ottawa.*



For those occupations, would it make more sense to put them in the Public Service instead?


----------



## jollyjacktar (27 Oct 2015)

FSTO said:
			
		

> A letter to the editor on the East Coast regarding Mr Leslie
> 
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/letters/1318896-reader%E2%80%99s-corner-anybody-but-andy-leslie-at-dnd



This would be a time I wish I had that hand clap gif to post. (among others...)


----------



## dapaterson (27 Oct 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> For those occupations, would it make more sense to put them in the Public Service instead?



If your career consists of 9-5 officework, then why do we need you in a uniform?


----------



## dimsum (27 Oct 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If your career consists of 9-5 officework, then why do we need you in a uniform?



I think we're both in agreement here.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Oct 2015)

Is there a case to be made for converting some positions to the civil service with a condition of hire being that the candidate has done X-years in the CAF?  

Could that reserve the uniformed numbers for deployable personnel?

Perhaps some of those "civilian" members could also be Reserve members that could be activated as the situation warrants?


----------



## dapaterson (27 Oct 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Is there a case to be made for converting some positions to the civil service with a condition of hire being that the candidate has done X-years in the CAF?
> 
> Could that reserve the uniformed numbers for deployable personnel?
> 
> Perhaps some of those "civilian" members could also be Reserve members that could be activated as the situation warrants?



If all you are is a project manager, why do you need to be in uniform at all, in any capacity?  Project directors are there to keep the requirements in the forefront, but the PMs have no need for military background.  Indeed, posting people every 2 or 3 years just disrupts the delivery of capability.

The CAF suffers from a uniform fetish, a penchant for building large useless HQs, and a lack of institutional discipline.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Oct 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Is there a case to be made for converting some positions to the civil service with a condition of hire being that the candidate has done X-years in the CAF?
> 
> Could that reserve the uniformed numbers for deployable personnel?
> 
> Perhaps some of those "civilian" members could also be Reserve members that could be activated as the situation warrants?



I'm willing to bet that A. Most of those people filling civilian jobs aren't deployable, or B. Those people being told to get out won't want to be in uniform anymore.


----------



## McG (27 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> What is gating? Or did I just define it above?


Instead of automatic TOS renewals, selection boards rank personnel and only the top X recieve offers of new TOS.  If some number decline then the offers are extended to the next highest persons on the list.  TOS expiry serves as a gate to remove low performers from the service.



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Is there a case to be made for converting some positions to the civil service with a condition of hire being that the candidate has done X-years in the CAF?


That sort of requirement is strongly frowned upon.  Instead of years service, one could create a requirement for a skill set exclusively taught to a particular rank (and/or occupation).  But, we like to over-use such things to guarantee retirement employment where no prior military service is actually necessary.


----------



## jollyjacktar (27 Oct 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If your career consists of 9-5 officework, then why do we need you in a uniform?



People would object if I came to work naked.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Oct 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> Instead of automatic TOS renewals, selection boards rank personnel and only the top X recieve offers of new TOS.  If some number decline then the offers are extended to the next highest persons on the list.  TOS expiry serves as a gate to remove low performers from the service.



Excellent, thank you. 

Seems like we have quite a few ways to release members via the system. Its the willpower to do so and make tough changes that's lacking.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Oct 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If all you are is a project manager, why do you need to be in uniform at all, in any capacity?  Project directors are there to keep the requirements in the forefront, but the PMs have no need for military background.  Indeed, posting people every 2 or 3 years just disrupts the delivery of capability.
> 
> The CAF suffers from a uniform fetish, a penchant for building large useless HQs, and a lack of institutional discipline.



Seen.


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Oct 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The CAF suffers from a uniform fetish, a penchant for building large useless HQs, and a lack of institutional discipline.



It's not a fetish; it's the nature of the military.  Remember, the "A" stands for "Armed". And the last thing we need is a three piece suit as project director.  Those with the levers on the money?  Of course that's Public Works, but the nature of our game is that *everyone* is replaceable.  The last thing we need is some union hack in an position from which he cannot be fired.


----------



## McG (27 Oct 2015)

PDs are uniformed; they are requirements staff in the environmental commands.
PMs are a mix of uniforms and suits in ADM(Mat); they have no need to be military.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Oct 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> PDs are uniformed; they are requirements staff in the environmental commands.
> PMs are a mix of uniforms and suits in ADM(Mat); they have no need to be military.



 :nod:

PMP certification is more important for a PM than looking like his/her PD colleague.


----------



## Lumber (28 Oct 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If your career consists of 9-5 officework, then why do we need you in a uniform?



I suppose we could sail without the entire logistics department on board. Who needs them? Or better yet, when they have spent a few years on ship and need a break, we'll just lay them off and re-hire them in a year or two. I mean, where else can we send them when the BOR is full of civilian clerks?


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I suppose we could sail without the entire logistics department on board. Who needs them? Or better yet, when they have spent a few years on ship and need a break, we'll just lay them off and re-hire them in a year or two. I mean, where else can we send them when the BOR is full of civilian clerks?



I think it is easy to argue against extremes. The hard part is finding the workable compromise.


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I suppose we could sail without the entire logistics department on board. Who needs them? Or better yet, when they have spent a few years on ship and need a break, we'll just lay them off and re-hire them in a year or two. I mean, where else can we send them when the BOR is full of civilian clerks?



Don't laugh.  I was told my the bin rats on FRE when I was there the other year, that that is a thing that is really being looked at seriously.  No, log types on the whole and the sections would have to self help themselves.


----------



## dapaterson (28 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I suppose we could sail without the entire logistics department on board. Who needs them? Or better yet, when they have spent a few years on ship and need a break, we'll just lay them off and re-hire them in a year or two. I mean, where else can we send them when the BOR is full of civilian clerks?



For officers, the MARE, AERE, RCEME and Sigs worlds have few ship/field postings compared to their total strengths; a lot of the work is in Ottawa as project managers and other support staff that do not require a military background.  With nine Reg F infantry battalions we have roughly 400 company commanders (majors) in the Regular Force Infantry.

There's a whole lot of culling that could be done at levels above reality that would translate into more PYs for either new capabilities or rounding out existing establishments so it's not the same people constantly being sent away.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Oct 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> For officers, the MARE, AERE, RCEME and Sigs worlds have few ship/field postings compared to their total strengths; a lot of the work is in Ottawa as project managers and other support staff that do not require a military background.  _*With nine Reg F infantry battalions we have roughly 400 company commanders (majors) in the Regular Force Infantry.*_
> 
> There's a whole lot of culling that could be done at levels above reality that would translate into more PYs for either new capabilities or rounding out existing establishments so it's not the same people constantly being sent away.



For clarification - 9 Battalions requires 63 Majors? No?

DCO, Ops O, OC Adm, OC Spt, 3 times OC Rifles = 7 for each of 9?

Edit: 

Even if a Reg Force Inf Major were posted to each of the 51 Reserve Infantry Units (63 + 51 = 114), that does seem to leave a considerable surplus.


----------



## Remius (28 Oct 2015)

Some of them a COs of smaller units.  CFRCs, Ceremonial Guard and others I'm unaware of.  Still seems like a lot though.

Edit to add:  I assume some are posted to various schools as well as OCs et al.


----------



## McG (28 Oct 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> DCO, Ops O, OC Adm, OC Spt, 3 times OC Rifles = 7 for each of 9?


Unless the unit is assigned a named mission, the Ops O is a captain.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (28 Oct 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> For officers, the MARE, AERE, RCEME and Sigs worlds have few ship/field postings compared to their total strengths; a lot of the work is in Ottawa as project managers and other support staff that do not require a military background.  With nine Reg F infantry battalions we have roughly 400 company commanders (majors) in the Regular Force Infantry.
> 
> There's a whole lot of culling that could be done at levels above reality that would translate into more PYs for either new capabilities or rounding out existing establishments so it's not the same people constantly being sent away.



I agree that we have too many officers, but I think the fallacy in your logic is that reducing the number of officers will somehow magically result in more soldiers. The fact that there are MANY NCM billets unfilled right now indicates that there are just not enough people interested in joining the military as there are positions open.


----------



## McG (28 Oct 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I agree that we have too many officers, but I think the fallacy in your logic is that reducing the number of officers will somehow magically result in more soldiers. The fact that there are MANY NCM billets unfilled right now indicates that there are just not enough people interested in joining the military as there are positions open.


That is one possible explanation.  But could your identified symptom not also be explained by failings in the recruiting and training systems?  The limiting capacity may not be public interest but through-put at either (or both) these entities internal to the CAF.


----------



## dapaterson (28 Oct 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I agree that we have too many officers, but I think the fallacy in your logic is that reducing the number of officers will somehow magically result in more soldiers. The fact that there are MANY NCM billets unfilled right now indicates that there are just not enough people interested in joining the military as there are positions open.



In fact, the problem is more foundational: the establishment has morphed over time without adequate oversight. The BTL (and SUTL, which is usually included in discussions about the BTL) isn't big enough to accomodate the intake required to sustain the force in being (based on data that reflects attrition rates and time to OFP for officers and NCMs).  The SPHL is much smaller than the number of pers assigned to it.  Therefore, if we remain within the paid ceiling assigned, since BTL and SPHL are overstrength, then the trained effective establishment (TEE) can't be filled.

Any change to the establishment then requires changes to recruiting and training to bring in the new (and retrain or retire the old).  The time frame to accomplish that is measured in years, not days.

One hopes that the new defence policy will take a long term view and direct the CAF to transition towards long term goals.  Too often, we jerk and swirl around to address short term problems that should ahve been addressed in long term plans.


----------



## Halifax Tar (28 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I suppose we could sail without the entire logistics department on board. Who needs them? Or better yet, when they have spent a few years on ship and need a break, we'll just lay them off and re-hire them in a year or two. I mean, where else can we send them when the BOR is full of civilian clerks?



I would like to meet the supply dept that works days and that's it.  No offense lumber but you just excentuate the extreme lack logistical understanding you "Hard Sea" types have. 

God I never thought I'd say it but I miss the Army.


----------



## FSTO (28 Oct 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I would like to meet the supply dept that works days and that's it.  No offense lumber but you just excentuate the extreme lack logistical understanding you "Hard Sea" types have.
> 
> God I never thought I'd say it but I miss the Army.



I think he was being sarcastic. Wasn't he?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (28 Oct 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> That is one possible explanation.  But could your identified symptom not also be explained by failings in the recruiting and training systems?  The limiting capacity may not be public interest but through-put at either (or both) these entities internal to the CAF.



The recruiting and training systems certainly are problems as well. The fact that it can take up to a year to get someone in the military from their going to the recruiting centre to starting basic is ridiculous. The fact that (for officer especially) it could take another 2-3 years to have them trade qualified for a basic entry job that they might do for 1 year is also a deterant. 

I do, however, believe that there is something to be said for there just being a lack of recruits or interest in joining the military in society in general. We have a large number of societal and internal factors working against the military for recruiting, including- lack of bases near major cities (and subsequently persons from Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal being less interested in joining as they cannot return to anywhere near their home areas), a relatively strong economy, and a higher educated public generally less inclined to do many of the types of jobs that the military is hiring for. Heck, society in general is screaming for tradespeople, so why would someone who can be a tradesman from Toronto, work in Toronto, and be his/her own boss want to join the military to do the same job, not be their own boss, and be posted to somewhere like Petawawa or Shilo?


----------



## Halifax Tar (28 Oct 2015)

FSTO said:
			
		

> I think he was being sarcastic. Wasn't he?



Perhaps.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (28 Oct 2015)

Just going to be bit of a contrarian here Bird_Gunner:

I would think that CFB Montreal is a pretty big base quite close to ... well, Montreal; CFB Borden ain't so small and it is well within reach of Toronto to visit with the family, and so would CFB Trenton I would say; It ain't perfect but, hey, seems to me CFB Esquimalt is within reasonable week-end day trip to mama in Vancouver; and on the second tier, lets see CFB Edmonton ... pretty close to Edmonton; CFB Valcartier ... pretty close to Quebec City, and CFB Halifax pretty close to Halifax.

I think we have to start looking for something else than pretending we live only in the boonies all the time as the reason people don't join.

Let me trow a spitball here: Why don't we make TV and internet advertisement blitzes more often. I could be wrong but they seem to work. And when we do blitz them, let's make sure that all the resources needed  for fast processing are lined up at the recruiting centres.


----------



## dapaterson (28 Oct 2015)

From the figures I have seen, the recruiting group exceeded its targets last year for the Reg F SIP.  There are challenges in recruiting only a very small number of occupations (and even many which are currently strained have healthy BTL cohorts).

Recruiting capacity is intimately related to CFLRS training capacity; there is then the requirement to align follow-on training to minimize time spent awaiting training.  There have been numerous initiatives in the past to increase recruiting without taking an adequate view of the personnel production system, which resulted in some notoorious cases of people being enrolled, compelting their basic training, and then releasing at the end of their initial engagement without completing any occupational training.


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Oct 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> With nine Reg F infantry battalions we have roughly 400 company commanders (majors) in the Regular Force Infantry.
> 
> There's a whole lot of culling that could be done at levels above reality that would translate into more PYs for either new capabilities or rounding out existing establishments so it's not the same people constantly being sent away.



This piqued my curiosity, so I dug out my copy of the 1965 Canadian Army Officers List (the last one published) before a common one was introduced. At that time the army strength was in the order of 48,000 all ranks, including 13 infantry battalions each of four companies and an establishment around 850-875.

I then counted the regular force infantry majors, subtracted the four Acting Lieutenant Colonels who were not WSE and added the 27 Captains (Acting Majors) again not WSE. The total was 282 infantry officers wearing a crown on their shoulder straps.

Food for thought? The aim of integration and unification was to reduce overhead and administrative and personnel costs. How well have we done that?


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Oct 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> This piqued my curiosity, so I dug out my copy of the 1965 Canadian Army Officers List (the last one published) before a common one was introduced. At that time the army strength was in the order of 48,000 all ranks, including 13 infantry battalions each of four companies and an establishment around 850-875.
> 
> I then counted the regular force infantry majors, subtracted the four Acting Lieutenant Colonels who were not WSE and added the 27 Captains (Acting Majors) again not WSE. The total was 282 infantry officers wearing a crown on their shoulder straps.
> 
> Food for thought? The aim of integration and unification was to reduce overhead and administrative and personnel costs. How well have we done that?



Seeing as how, as I understand it, the OC Cbt Spt Coy was also the Ops O that resulted in DCO, OC Adm, OC CS, 4x OC Rifles = 7  for each of 13 (total of 91) with a supernumerary to battalion ratio of 191:91.

Given McGs comment we are down to 6 Majors for each of 9 battalions then the 91 shrinks to 54.

Same 191:91 ratio should result in 113 supernumeraries for a grand total of 204 Infantry Majors (or roughly half the present day burden, I mean staffing).


----------



## dimsum (28 Oct 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I do, however, believe that there is something to be said for there just being a lack of recruits or interest in joining the military in society in general. We have a large number of societal and internal factors working against the military for recruiting, including- lack of bases near major cities (and subsequently persons from Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal being less interested in joining as they cannot return to anywhere near their home areas), a relatively strong economy, and a higher educated public generally less inclined to do many of the types of jobs that the military is hiring for. Heck, society in general is screaming for tradespeople, so why would someone who can be a tradesman from Toronto, work in Toronto, and be his/her own boss want to join the military to do the same job, not be their own boss, and be posted to somewhere like Petawawa or Shilo?



I'm of two minds about this.  OGBD does bring up a good point regarding locations, but what I've seen with the Australian Defence Force is that despite their Army being mostly in large cities (Sydney, Brisbane, Perth, and Adelaide all have garrisons within city limits) and their smaller bases being in decent-sized towns such as Townsville and Darwin, retention is still an issue.  Same goes with the RAN, which is based in Sydney and fairly close to Perth.  This may be a function of the younger generation, and not specifically because of location.

However, I can also see BG45's points as well.  The demographic is changing, and younger people will want to be near cities, if not in them.  Also, I think the more short-term pressing issue for QOL is spousal employment - in places like Greenwood, Wainwright, Shilo, Cold Lake, etc. (and to an extent, Comox) there isn't a whole lot for the spouse to do, esp if he/she is considering leaving a well-paying job (e.g. lawyer) in a city.  

Short of closing and moving bases, which obviously won't work practically (and more importantly, politically), I'm not sure how to solve this problem.  I *guess* that the SAR squadrons could go to something like a x-weeks on, x-weeks off schedule like folks working the oil patch.  

I don't think that being close to family is the issue - it may be for some, but lots of young people are travelling/living away from their parents.


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 Oct 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I would like to meet the supply dept that works days and that's it.  No offense lumber but you just excentuate the extreme lack logistical understanding you "Hard Sea" types have.
> 
> God I never thought I'd say it but I miss the Army.



Tsk, tsk.  Not all us Hard Sea types have a lack of appreciation or understanding for how hard the Supply/Logistics Dept. work.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (28 Oct 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I'm of two minds about this.  OGBD does bring up a good point regarding locations, but what I've seen with the Australian Defence Force is that despite their Army being mostly in large cities (Sydney, Brisbane, Perth, and Adelaide all have garrisons within city limits) and their smaller bases being in decent-sized towns such as Townsville and Darwin, retention is still an issue.  Same goes with the RAN, which is based in Sydney and fairly close to Perth.  This may be a function of the younger generation, and not specifically because of location.
> 
> However, I can also see BG45's points as well.  The demographic is changing, and younger people will want to be near cities, if not in them.  Also, I think the more short-term pressing issue for QOL is spousal employment - in places like Greenwood, Wainwright, Shilo, Cold Lake, etc. (and to an extent, Comox) there isn't a whole lot for the spouse to do, esp if he/she is considering leaving a well-paying job (e.g. lawyer) in a city.
> 
> ...



For the younger generation, there are many studies that indicate that many/most of the new generation aren't interested in being tied down into a single career for their entire lives and would prefer more diversity of experiences. The book "Sling and the Stone" discusses this and the need to reform the industrial era career management systems we employ. The suggestion there was that people should be allowed to move to civilian jobs and re-enter the military without the headache currently employed and that the top down hierarchy employed today should be eliminated.

There may be some merit in looking at a remodelling of the MOS system... perhaps career types should be grouped and more flexibility should be given to allow personnel to move freely between trades without career repercussions. For postings- why not adopt a system where people can pick a region or base where they want to stay and allow them to stay instead of arbitrary postings based on nothing more than someones idea of "career development".

For the topic of living near parents I think it depends on how you view it. Many people I know in Toronto from newly landed immigrant families, where family values are still strong, would not consider joining the military as it would require them to move out of their neighbourhoods and away from parents. There are many groups aside from immigrants who would likely prefer to stay in cities vice risk being sent to a place like Shilo or Petawawa. 

Also, having bases in Esquimalt and Halifax is great if you want to be in the navy, not so great if you want to be army, etc.


----------



## McG (28 Oct 2015)

At a certain point, you also have to recognize that you cannot please everybody.  It does no good to the institution if the HQs and schools are filled with people who have put down roots and refuse to cycle back through pointy-end units to keep co edged with what is happening there.

You want Halifax and you want to be Army?  Maybe time to decide what is more important or to pick an occupation that has employment options in both places.

That aside, I am not yet convinced our manning issues are anything other than our own internal inabilities.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Oct 2015)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> We have our fair share of NCM's that should be shown the door as well...
> 
> I think we'd be better off as a smaller, more agile, and better trained/equipped force. Unfortunately I only see "smaller" being on the table of options.
> 
> Bring on FRP I guess.



How much smaller does anyone think we can get ???

I dislike terms like _'more agile'_.  Those buzz words are, IMO, used without context or definition in how they relate to the subject.  What they do allow is for 'reductions' based on some abstract word used hither and dither.   :2c:


----------



## Cloud Cover (29 Oct 2015)

I disagree that we have too many officers at rank of Major or LCDR and below. What we do have is a shortage of NCM's and combat or support units for these people to work in. The RN used to have a system where senior commissioned officers (except Admirals, and there were surprisingly few of those when the RN ruled the seas) were only employed when given a command of a ship or shore installation, or some other shore role worthy of an officer.  When not so employed, they were unemployed but kept on a call up/turn down seniority list. Perhaps it is time for the Canadian army to do the same.


----------



## blacktriangle (29 Oct 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> How much smaller does anyone think we can get ???
> 
> I dislike terms like _'more agile'_.  Those buzz words are, IMO, used without context or definition in how they relate to the subject.  What they do allow is for 'reductions' based on some abstract word used hither and dither.   :2c:



It would probably take a new defence white paper/coherent defence policy to give a proper answer. It's all dependent on what politicians, bureaucrats, and the public want us to do. I think most would be satisfied with a token force, so we are well on our way there.

I have my own ideas of what "agile" could mean, but I agree that with respect to DND/CAF it will just be a buzz word to facilitate cuts.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Oct 2015)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I disagree that we have too many officers at rank of Major or LCDR and below. What we do have is a shortage of NCM's and combat or support units for these people to work in. The RN used to have a system where senior commissioned officers (except Admirals, and there were surprisingly few of those when the RN ruled the seas) were only employed when given a command of a ship or shore installation, or some other shore role worthy of an officer.  When not so employed, they were unemployed but kept on a call up/turn down seniority list. Perhaps it is time for the Canadian army to do the same.



If we are to have a CAF of 68K Reg F (current direction), then what proprotion of officers is required to lead and manage that enterprise?  The question then is not "where are the sub-units for them to command" but rather "what are these excess senior officers doing?"

If, for the sake of argument, we assume Majors command groups of 100 personnel, and only one in three majors is so employed (with the remainder working in staff organizations), then the number of majors required is approximately 2000 - or about half the current tally.

Clearly, there will be variations between trades and environments; this is, after all, a very simplified model.  But having double the number suggested by a simplified, crude model suggests that even after refining the model, there is excess and surplus and unnecessary overhead.

Barring a solid policy framework that calls for an oversize officer corps to be ready, at the drop of a hat, to mobilize a much larger force, it is difficult to understand why the CAF requires such a significant officer corps (proportionately, it has grown by 40% since the 1970s).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Oct 2015)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> It would probably take a new defence white paper/coherent defence policy to give a proper answer. It's all dependent on what politicians, bureaucrats, and the public want us to do. I think most would be satisfied with a token force, so we are well on our way there.
> 
> I have my own ideas of what "agile" could mean, but I agree that with respect to DND/CAF it will just be a buzz word to facilitate cuts.



Rog that.  I think I misinterpreted the context of your post.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Oct 2015)

Article Link - Canada Ran Away

‘Canada ran away’: Online jihadists celebrate Trudeau’s win as they anticipate end to airstrikes

TORONTO — Online jihadists are reacting with “elation and a sense of triumph at a perceived defeat of Canada” over last week’s election results as they anticipate the Liberals’ promised end to airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, says a report released Thursday.

The Middle East Media Research Institute study said “known jihadists” and supporters of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant were rejoicing at the election of a government committed to halting Canada’s involvement in the international air coalition.

“The reactions generally expressed joy and displayed a triumphalist outlook at this development, including statements such as ‘Canada runs away’ and referring to it as ‘the crumbling of the Crusader alliance,’” said Elliot Zweig, the report’s author.

Canada deployed six CF-18 Hornet fighters to Kuwait last year to take part in U.S.-led airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq and later Syria. The terrorist group responded angrily in its propaganda by threatening Canada and trying to incite its followers to stage attacks.

_The initial jihadi online reaction to his election and to his promised policies reflects feelings of elation and a sense of triumph at a perceived defeat of Canada and the anti-ISIS coalition.
_
Prime minister-designate Justin Trudeau campaigned on a pledge to withdraw from the air coalition, although he would continue training Iraqi forces. There have been no Canadian strikes since last Friday, when an ISIL ammunition cache was targeted.

ISIL has made no official statement about the change in government but Zweig said MEMRI, a Washington-based non-profit, had noticed the reaction to the Liberal win as it was monitoring the social media accounts of terrorist groups and their supporters.

“Canada ran away,” read an Arabic-language Twitter post. Another, by Sally Jones, the widow of ISIL fighter Junaid Hussain, read: “Canadian fighter jets to withdraw from fighting ISIS – yeah because they know whats good for them.”

While some online extremists saw it as a sign of the unravelling of the anti-ISIL coalition, others were skeptical. “I highly doubt they will withdraw cause at the end of the day Canada is a u.s. lab (Sic) dog and the u.s. is owned by the yahuud (Jews),” one post read.

“The long-term effect of PM Trudeau’s promised withdrawal of Canadian fighter planes from the bombing campaign against ISIS remains to be seen, both on the ground as well as in terms of terrorists’ online discussions about Canada,” the report read.

“This is particularly true in light of Trudeau’s commitment to continue Canadian efforts in training Kurdish militias. But the initial jihadi online reaction to his election and to his promised policies reflects feelings of elation and a sense of triumph at a perceived defeat of Canada and the anti-ISIS coalition. It also must be borne in mind that although the Canadian leadership has changed, ISIS is still not likely to remove its ongoing focus from Canada.”


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Oct 2015)

And so we start the rapid decent into the pits of international stature. Why is it that the liberals can never find the balls to stand for the warrior and righteous?


----------



## Harrigan (30 Oct 2015)

ISIL online jihadists are now the arbiters of Canada's international stature?  Really?


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Oct 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> ISIL online jihadists are now the arbiters of Canada's international stature?  Really?


Agreed.  I give ISIS the level of credibility I gave the Taliban when one of their commanders took credit for Canada leaving Afghanistan - and while some folks hoped Canada would stay longer, not many bemoaned Canada's loss of balls/face then.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (30 Oct 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If, for the sake of argument, we assume Majors command groups of 100 personnel, and only one in three majors is so employed (with the remainder working in staff organizations), then the number of majors required is approximately 2000 - or about half the current tally.



The truly telling statistic would be the percentage of those Majors who never commanded a company / squadron / battery, because they were not fit to command....


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Oct 2015)

But aren't we getting at something we have touched on before?

The rank structure is based on the same problem that Moses identified.  How do you organize large bodies of people?



> So Moses chose able men from all Israel and made them leaders over the people as commanders of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens.


 Exodus 18:25

That problem remains unchanged.

But what level of "manager" is required to press the button to obliterate the planet?  

Privates squeeze triggers.  Bombardiers pull lanyards. Sergeants (used to) fly aircraft and some fly helicopters.  How difficult is it to push the button?

What level of training/life experience is necessary to make those kinds of decisions / follow those kinds of orders?

The infantry is still faced with Moses problem - man management - but how much of the budget needs to be spent on manpower?

The Americans lead the way in adding buttons and ditching manpower because, in my opinion, they have created a defensive force designed to obliterate any formed force that faces them.  They don't need to persuade or cajole, and they really dislike the idea of occupying.  They don't need a lot of bodies.

They want to destroy formations of bodies, their equipment and their buildings, and shoot down bullets.   All of those are highly technical tasks better performed by machines with a small number of men in the loop.

So how many machines should a Major command?


----------



## McG (30 Oct 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> So how many machines should a Major command?


You don't command machines, you operate them.
Operating machines is done by NCMs and in some cases by junior officers, either individually or in teams.
Majors are not required where there are not people to command.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Oct 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> You don't command machines, you operate them.
> _Operating machines is done by NCMs and in some cases supervised by junior officers, either individually or in teams._
> _Majors are not required where there are not people to command._




I agree, wholeheartedly, with both assertions.

Even the most complex and lethal _machinery_ is the business of the NCOs. Officers, junior officers, ought to learn how to operate the machines, but only so that they can properly supervise and manage their deployment and use.

Most captains and all majors and above ought to be involved in _leading and managing_ the processes through which the NCOs and their deadly machines serve the country's interests.


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Oct 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If, for the sake of argument, we assume Majors command groups of 100 personnel, and only one in three majors is so employed (with the remainder working in staff organizations), then the number of majors required is approximately 2000 - or about half the current tally.



If I can return to the majors, in my opinion a contributing factor is the increase in CRA. Harkening back to the 282 infantry majors listed in the 1965 officers list, at that time CRA for majors was 49. In the mid-70s it was raised to 55 and then raised again to 60 in the mid-90s. Given the minimum culling of the herd in the CAF, the extra PYs have to be employed somewhere.

I know at least one GO had anticipated this and used to rant about how the majors (depending upon his mood he used to qualify them with various uncomplimentary adjectives) had hoodwinked the senior management into giving them six more years of pensionable service.


----------



## Remius (30 Oct 2015)

Let's also not forget that we have professional groups like JAG, TDOs, etc that are not necessarily leading anyone (or very few) but due to their professional status are at that Rank.


----------



## Stoker (30 Oct 2015)

Looks like the CAF been given their marching orders


Canadian Forces to draft plan to help resettle Syrian refugees 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadian-forces-to-draft-plan-to-help-resettle-syrian-refugees/article27041233/


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Oct 2015)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Looks like the CAF been given their marching orders
> 
> 
> Canadian Forces to draft plan to help resettle Syrian refugees
> ...



Having served in J3 Plans and J3 Ops in the old DCDS shop, I would be very surprised if a plan with various contingencies had not been in the works for several weeks, if not months.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I agree, wholeheartedly, with both assertions.
> 
> Even the most complex and lethal _machinery_ is the business of the NCOs. Officers, junior officers, ought to learn how to operate the machines, but only so that they can properly supervise and manage their deployment and use.
> 
> Most captains and all majors and above ought to be involved in _leading and managing_ the processes through which the NCOs and their deadly machines serve the country's interests.



So...

Do we go back to Captains are leaders of men and Lieutenants and Sergeants are there to assist them?

Captains then command Operators and Corporals, capable of pushing many buttons and operating many machines. (Corporals flying aircraft and operating GBAD Troops and individual tanks?)

With Captains being commanded by a Captain-General? 

How many Lieutenants does the Captain-General need? Servants-Major-General?, Leaders of Brigades, Leaders of Columns?

How many Lieutenants do the Column Leaders need? Servants Major?  

How many Servants do the Officers need?

Being a pig about this because the whole rank structure is based on tradition and addresses a problem that was defined thousands of years ago.

In the modern industrial world, arguably spear-headed by the Ordnance Department, both ashore and afloat,  armies don't look like Moses's mob.  That bunch is just one part of the Army (to include Aerial and Floating members - most of which are gunners and their servants).


----------



## Lumber (30 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Even the most complex and lethal machinery is the business of the NCOs. Officers, junior officers, ought to learn how to operate the machines, but only so that they can properly supervise and manage their deployment and use.



I'm not sure if you're asserting that this is how it _is_, or that this is how it _should be_, but aboard a warship, it's a little different. The firing of _our_ weapons is the business of the junior officers and petty officers. (again, not saying this is how it should be, but how it is). 

We do train the NCOs to fire the guns and AA missiles, but that is considered an emergency back-up. In the primary role, it is Lt(N)/PO1 who fires the main gun and ESSM, and it is ALWAYS  a Lt(N)/PO1 who fires the Harpoons and Torpedoes; no one junior to them is trained on those systems. 

Aboard HMC Ships, the Lt(N) and PO1 of a warfare division actually have the same exact job; fight the ship using the people and weapon systems in their respective division. Who actually does the fighting depends simply on who happened to be on watch when crap hit the fan. The off-watch director simply stands next to him and helps out however he can.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Oct 2015)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Looks like the CAF been given their marching orders
> 
> 
> Canadian Forces to draft plan to help resettle Syrian refugees
> ...



In Germany they are in serious trouble finding clothing and shelter for the numbers that they are getting.  They are upset that other nations are not lightening the burden.  They are even discussing with the American Forces in Germany for assistance that may include housing.


----------



## McG (30 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Even the most complex and lethal _machinery_ is the business of the NCOs. Officers, junior officers, ought to learn how to operate the machines, but only so that they can properly supervise and manage their deployment and use.


That is the army model.  I think pilots illustrate that the air force uses a different model.



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> Let's also not forget that we have professional groups like JAG, TDOs, etc that are not necessarily leading anyone (or very few) but due to their professional status are at that Rank.


I acknowledge the professional groups, but note rank inflation exists there too.  Within these occupations, the statement still is true: Majors are not required where there are not people to command.  There is no reason for the local office of lawyers to be all majors when all but one could be captains.  They have thier own pay scale; they don't need extra compensation with inflated ranks.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (30 Oct 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Having served in J3 Plans and J3 Ops in the old DCDS shop, I would be very surprised if a plan with various contingencies had not been in the works for several weeks, if not months.



Or, you just dust off the old plans that have already been used.

Operation MAGNET

Operation MAGNET II  (_I was at the Griesbach Barracks location for a short spell_)

Operation MAGNET III

Operation PARASOL


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Oct 2015)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Or, you just dust off the old plans that have already been used.
> 
> Operation MAGNET
> 
> ...



If anybody can find them, it is a good start, especially if there are any lessons learned or after action reports. I know I did a file search, etc before I drafted the NEO plan for Haiti in 1991 after a coup overthrew Aristide and then later revised it in 1993 or 1994.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Oct 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> Let's also not forget that we have professional groups like JAG, TDOs, etc that are not necessarily leading anyone (or very few) but due to their professional status are at that Rank.



The sum total of the PML for all TDOs and Legal officers at all ranks is still smaller than the PML for Infantry at Major.  Besides, that was intended as illustrative; there are some differences in employment models between occupations which may result in some skewing.  The problem space remains: the optimal ratio of officers to NCMs - what should it be? 

(And I stand corrected: the PML for Inf Maj is well under 400, closer to 300).


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Oct 2015)

That PML is still inflated compared to the 13 battalion army with four large brigade groups.


----------



## Remius (30 Oct 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The sum total of the PML for all TDOs and Legal officers at all ranks is still smaller than the PML for Infantry at Major.  Besides, that was intended as illustrative; there are some differences in employment models between occupations which may result in some skewing.  The problem space remains: the optimal ratio of officers to NCMs - what should it be?
> 
> (And I stand corrected: the PML for Inf Maj is well under 400, closer to 300).



Not sure what the ratio should be but it should be based on occupation or occupational organisation.  Take the infantry and figure out how many officers are required, for how long, succession planning and where to send them when done.  So say an infantry company requires a Major.  Maybe he does a stint before as OC of a training company or something else for three years, three years as OC of a rifle company then cycled to another or back to a school in a more advanced course or staff position before promotion to LCol.  So for each rifle company Major you need one in the wings, one on, one moving on.   3 Majors for each actual command position of a rifle company.  Mind yuou then you might want some depth due to realeases, injuries, failures etc but you likely have some star captains that could step up.  Heck you could send some to the reserves to be DCO/CO depending on their size.


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Oct 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> Heck you could send some to the reserves to be DCO/CO depending on their size.



Somehow I think you meant something different from what you wrote.  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Oct 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> Not sure what the ratio should be but it should be based on occupation or occupational organisation.  Take the infantry and figure out how many officers are required, for how long, succession planning and where to send them when done.  So say an infantry company requires a Major.  Maybe he does a stint before as OC of a training company or something else for three years, three years as OC of a rifle company then cycled to another or back to a school in a more advanced course or staff position before promotion to LCol.  So for each rifle company Major you need one in the wings, one on, one moving on.   3 Majors for each actual command position of a rifle company.  Mind yuou then you might want some depth due to realeases, injuries, failures etc but you likely have some star captains that could step up.  Heck you could send some to the reserves to be DCO/CO depending on their size.



Isn't the "waiting in the wings" Major supposed to be a Captain?


----------



## overseer (30 Oct 2015)

The beauty of being a public servant. We can easily shift allegiance with justification. "Give to Ceasar what is suppose to be to Ceasar, to God what is suppose to be to God". We all now report to Prime Minister Trudeau.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Nov 2015)

There is an opportunity, given Russia's renewed attention to the Arctic, for Prime Minister designate Trudeau to reorient Canada's foreign and defence policies in directions that may please more Canadians than did Prime Minister Harper's:

   First: get out of thew Middle East ~ completely out;

   Second: stay engaged in Eastern Europe with a mix of naval, land and air elements;

   Third: focus more and more attention on the North ~

      a. Commit to defined (larger) number of AOPS and to accelerating the construction of the CCGS _John G Diefenbaker_;

      b. Increase the number, duration, frequency, intensity and, especially, visibility of Army exercises in the North;

      c. Keep the promise to cancel the F-35 but commit to buying aircraft (fighter/interceptors and long range patrol) that will do better at maintaining sovereignty over the Arctic; and

      d. Commit to an integrated space, air, terrestrial and underwater sensor/warning/communications system to give Canada near real time coverage of all the territory and contiguous waters (and maritime approaches) we claim as our own and the airspace over both.


----------



## BurnDoctor (2 Nov 2015)

overseer said:
			
		

> The beauty of being a public servant. We can easily shift allegiance with justification. "Give to Ceasar what is suppose to be to Ceasar, to God what is suppose to be to God". We all now report to Prime Minister Trudeau.



Nope, that's not how it works. Technically we report to the Governor General.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Nov 2015)

BurnDoctor said:
			
		

> Technically we report to the Governor General.


Depending on what kind of "public servant" you mean, the Clerk of the Privy Council is "Head of the federal Public Service".


----------



## a_majoor (2 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There is an opportunity, given Russia's renewed attention to the Arctic, for Prime Minister designate Trudeau to reorient Canada's foreign and defence policies in directions that may please more Canadians than did Prime Minister Harper's:
> 
> First: get out of thew Middle East ~ completely out;
> 
> ...



While I agree that these are important policy issues, they have little or no interest to voters, so therefore will probably have little traction in political circles as well (no votes or links to buying votes). If only some grown ups who were ready to govern were in charge...


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There is an opportunity, given Russia's renewed attention to the Arctic, for Prime Minister designate Trudeau to reorient Canada's foreign and defence policies in directions that may please more Canadians than did Prime Minister Harper's:
> 
> First: get out of thew Middle East ~ completely out;
> 
> ...



So when do you figure a NATO CF-18/Whatever Squadron will be permanently located in SW Poland? Perhaps with a couple of LRPAs?

We have done the Black Sea from Romania and the Baltic from Lithuania.  Rzeszow is roughly equidistant - and it is just over the border from Lviv/Lvov/Lv'v.

And once we are in the area the distance from Bucharest in Romania to Aleppo in Syria is roughly the same as Toronto to Kenora or Toronto to Halifax.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Nov 2015)

Cancel the F-35, but keep air assets engaged in Eastern Europe where they would have the greatest chance to have to need the Gen 5 capabilities? Sounds like a perfect Liberal defense platform, CAF making do with insufficient kit for the task given.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Nov 2015)

I wouldn't put 'a couple' of LRPAs anywhere if you want to have them available for the third task.  3c isn't going to happen anytime soon for the LRP fleet;  14 are going to upgraded to Block 3 and flying until at least 2030.  

14 LRPAs sounds like 'lots' but it isn't, more over when they are 35+ years old.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Nov 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Cancel the F-35, but keep air assets engaged in Eastern Europe where they would have the greatest chance to have to need the Gen 5 capabilities? Sounds like a perfect Liberal defense platform, CAF making do with insufficient kit for the task given.



Agreed.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Nov 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> .....
> 
> 14 LRPAs sounds like 'lots' ...



It doesn't.


----------



## PanaEng (2 Nov 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> That is the army model.  I think pilots illustrate that the air force uses a different model.
> I acknowledge the professional groups, but note rank inflation exists there too.  Within these occupations, the statement still is true: Majors are not required where there are not people to command.  There is no reason for the local office of lawyers to be all majors when all but one could be captains.  They have thier own pay scale; they don't need extra compensation with inflated ranks.


you (and many others here) forget to acknowledge the restrictive compensation schedule we work under. At the moment, how do you retain a good medical doctor or lawyer? rank inflation (until the pay scales catch up)


----------



## GR66 (2 Nov 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I wouldn't put 'a couple' of LRPAs anywhere if you want to have them available for the third task.  3c isn't going to happen anytime soon for the LRP fleet;  14 are going to upgraded to Block 3 and flying until at least 2030.
> 
> 14 LRPAs sounds like 'lots' but it isn't, more over when they are 35+ years old.



IF (big "if" I know) there were cost savings in buying fewer/cheaper fighters would there be the possibility of suplementing the Aurora fleet with cheaper/smaller aircraft?

Isreal Aerospace Industries (IAI) has an MPA suite (ELI-3360) that they've integrated into two Bombardier aircraft, the Global Express 5000 (which has a range similar to the CP-140 from what I can see) and the Q-400.  Both are also weaponized (the Global Express supposedly has 4 x external hardpoints for lightweight torpedoes, harpoon-class missiles or deployable SAR pods).  

http://defense-update.com/20150209_elta_g5000_mpa.html#.VjfGmCvj-K8

Having more MPA's would fit the Liberal narrative of focusing more on defending our own sovereignty than fighting foreign wars with the added political bonus of giving industrial support for a (struggling) Canadian aircraft manufacturer.

Would such aircraft be a useful addition or are there better/more cost effective ways of acheiving a similar goal?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Nov 2015)

GR66 said:
			
		

> IF (big "if" I know) there were cost savings in buying fewer/cheaper fighters would there be the possibility of suplementing the Aurora fleet with cheaper/smaller aircraft?
> 
> Isreal Aerospace Industries (IAI) has an MPA suite (ELI-3360) that they've integrated into two Bombardier aircraft, the Global Express 5000 (which has a range similar to the CP-140 from what I can see) and the Q-400.  Both are also weaponized (the Global Express supposedly has 4 x external hardpoints for lightweight torpedoes, harpoon-class missiles or deployable SAR pods).
> 
> ...



After a quick look, it has the potential of being a decent platform to add to current capabilities.  I haven't seen the endurance specs (and with what wpns and/or search stores configs), or any other data on it.  In very simple terms, turbo-prop is better for the low and slow stuff; jet engines are better for speed and are fuel pigs at say, 300 feet or so.  Every aircraft, whether fixed or fling-wing, has a 'max takeoff weight'.  If you take more search stores, weapons and the like it usually means taking a smaller fuel load.  As one option, you could say, forego the MAD and sonobuoys and make it strictly a surveillance/AsuW platform with the ASW being handled by the 140 until she is retired in about 15 years.  FWIW we used to have CP-140A Actaurus which had no ASW gear and were used in that role.  They rapidly had their hours maxed out and are at the boneyard now.

The RCAF could, I believe, benefit from a platform like this (without looking at the details yet...*disclaimer*) but I would rather see other options looked at first before a purchase.  With the RAF still talking about an MPA purchase, reopening Kinloss etc, and looking at 'other than P-8 solutions' other folks will be putting their best foot forward, so I am interested to see what comes out of that. 

Having said all that, the 140 community is relatively healthy now and has had $ put our way and have a fairly capable aircraft (I wish we had more of them but...).  I'd like to see the Cyclone get on its feet, FWSAR moved forward and a decision on fighter replacements before $ is spent to replace/add to the LRPA fleet.  We can hold our own for a bit.  CMA was put on the back burner for a while, which was why we upgraded 14 vice 10 IIRC.  Maybe add to/adjust YFR as a start, if this was the way the incoming government wanted to go.  Personally, I think the Arctic is something that we need to think about, plan for NOW not later...later will be too...late.   :2c:

I'd like to see their definition of lightweight fish.


----------



## McG (2 Nov 2015)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> At the moment, how do you retain a good medical doctor or lawyer? rank inflation (until the pay scales catch up)


That is wrong.  You do not rank inflate.  You set the pay scales appropriately.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Nov 2015)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> you (and many others here) forget to acknowledge the restrictive compensation schedule we work under. At the moment, how do you retain a good medical doctor or lawyer? rank inflation (until the pay scales catch up)



Our pay scales are more than competitive.  Unlike private sector lawyers and doctors, CAF doctors and lawyers don't pay for their practice expenses.  Don't pay for ongoing professional development.  Receive a lucrative pension plan.

A new entry doctor receives in excess of $140K per year (Capt Basic plus medical differential) - hardly poverty wages.  By the time they hit Major they're just below $200K - again, with none of the expenses of running a practice that their civilian confreres face.  Lawyers?  They start at $77K (Capt Basic) and within four years are at nearly $100K - again, with no costs to run  practice, no pressure to increase billable hours...

I know several lawyers who joined the military as general service officers, and find themselves now making more money with less effort than they every did hanging out their shingles.


If anything, CAF officer compensation needs to be examined under a cold, hard light; given the responsibilities now assigned to most GSOs, their compensation appears to have outstripped their comparables.  Allowances should be used to compensate for hardship and risk; and it may also be time to abandon the team approach and compensate based on jobs - not all LCol positions are equal - commanding 3 VP is several order of magnitude more challenging than most staff flopper positions in Bde, Dvi and NDHQ, yet the CO gets no additional pay.


----------



## Jed (2 Nov 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Our pay scales are more than competitive.  Unlike private sector lawyers and doctors, CAF doctors and lawyers don't pay for their practice expenses.  Don't pay for ongoing professional development.  Receive a lucrative pension plan.
> 
> A new entry doctor receives in excess of $140K per year (Capt Basic plus medical differential) - hardly poverty wages.  By the time they hit Major they're just below $200K - again, with none of the expenses of running a practice that their civilian confreres face.  Lawyers?  They start at $77K (Capt Basic) and within four years are at nearly $100K - again, with no costs to run  practice, no pressure to increase billable hours...
> 
> ...



Its not all about the pay though, is it?


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Nov 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> Its not all about the pay though, is it?



It is if you have kids and a mortgage.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Nov 2015)

GR66 said:
			
		

> IF (big "if" I know) there were cost savings in buying fewer/cheaper fighters would there be the possibility of suplementing the Aurora fleet with cheaper/smaller aircraft?
> 
> Isreal Aerospace Industries (IAI) has an MPA suite (ELI-3360) that they've integrated into two Bombardier aircraft, the Global Express 5000 (which has a range similar to the CP-140 from what I can see) and the Q-400.  Both are also weaponized (the Global Express supposedly has 4 x external hardpoints for lightweight torpedoes, harpoon-class missiles or deployable SAR pods).
> 
> ...



While not a zoomie, I think you can make a useful analogy. A full fledged minivan (like a Dodge Caravan or Toyota Sienna) and a mini SUV like a Ford Escape or Honda CRV could conceivably carry a similar amount of "stuff", but which one would you rather carry large loads in for a long distance?

The smaller aircraft can either carry less "stuff", or carry all the stuff a larger aircraft could but forego range. As well, farther in the future, you will find it more difficult to modify the smaller plane to carry whatever "next generation" stuff that might become vital for the mission.

It would actually be more practical to buy C-130's and build racks to hold various sorts of electronic or other equipment for these sorts of missions, being a large and capable airframe (although the C-130 isn't optimized for the sorts of flight regimes).


----------



## GR66 (3 Nov 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While not a zoomie, I think you can make a useful analogy. A full fledged minivan (like a Dodge Caravan or Toyota Sienna) and a mini SUV like a Ford Escape or Honda CRV could conceivably carry a similar amount of "stuff", but which one would you rather carry large loads in for a long distance?
> 
> The smaller aircraft can either carry less "stuff", or carry all the stuff a larger aircraft could but forego range. As well, farther in the future, you will find it more difficult to modify the smaller plane to carry whatever "next generation" stuff that might become vital for the mission.
> 
> It would actually be more practical to buy C-130's and build racks to hold various sorts of electronic or other equipment for these sorts of missions, being a large and capable airframe (although the C-130 isn't optimized for the sorts of flight regimes).



I understand the analogy and obviously the preference would be to have a larger fleet of next-Gen CP-140s to handle our requirements.  However, like every other piece of kit we need, we're not likely going to get enough of them to do the job properly.


With the size of the territory that we need to patrol I wonder if a better analogy than compact SUV vs. full-sized van on a one-to-one basis would be comparing delivery companies.  Say you needed to service a large city like Toronto...with delivery requirements all over the city every day.  You have a limited budget for your fleet of trucks.  Obviously a semi-trailer can handle every size load you might be asked to carry but they are very expensive and you can only afford a few.  However, you can get two cube vans for the same price as a single semi-trailer.  They're not as good to be sure, and they can't handle every delivery, but there's lots of jobs they CAN do.  You probably don't want to just have cube vans because you won't be able to handle some of the important work out there...but if you only have semi-trucks there might be a lot of deliveries that you just can't get done.  

Just wondering if a Global 5000 or Q-400 variant might be a useful "cube van" for the CF.  Or maybe something else.  Remotely piloted vehicles may or may not be ready for "prime time".  Perhaps as E.R. Campbell mentioned satellites would be a better long-term investment.  Or maybe even a non-CF solution (less advanced aircraft for the DFO, the CCG or Environment Canada could fulfill a useful role).  Personally however, I think the ability to respond to a threat is as important as being able to detect the threat so my inclination is toward and armed, manned aircraft option.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Nov 2015)

GR66 said:
			
		

> IF (big "if" I know) there were cost savings in buying fewer/cheaper fighters would there be the possibility of suplementing the Aurora fleet with cheaper/smaller aircraft?
> 
> Isreal Aerospace Industries (IAI) has an MPA suite (ELI-3360) that they've integrated into two Bombardier aircraft, the Global Express 5000 (which has a range similar to the CP-140 from what I can see) and the Q-400.  Both are also weaponized (the Global Express supposedly has 4 x external hardpoints for lightweight torpedoes, harpoon-class missiles or deployable SAR pods).
> 
> ...



The simple answer is that you cannot carry torpedos externally on anything other than a helicopter and expect them to actually work when you need them in an environment like Canada's.

They actually do need to be protected in a heated bomb bay. That rules out most aircraft, right there.

I also doubt the Q400 has the speed or fuel reserves to make it out 1500nm from shore and actually be able to hang around long enough to do anything useful.

None of this is to say that we have to do MPA work with something like the P3. It is just that the alternative solution is not obvious to me.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Nov 2015)

SKT: How about fitting it inside a slightly modified C-Series 100? I gather fuel economy is good, and you would have ample space for internal bays.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Nov 2015)

That is the thing: Bombardier has been trying for years to get DND to pay for the engineering work and drop trials.

If this is such an awesome idea, why don't they pay for it themselves?

Oh, I know! Because inserting a bomb bay into a passenger aircraft is a non-trivial amount of work with a lot of risk.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Nov 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> That is the thing: Bombardier has been trying for years to get DND to pay for the engineering work and drop trials.
> 
> If this is such an awesome idea, why don't they pay for it themselves?
> 
> Oh, I know! Because inserting a bomb bay into a passenger aircraft is a non-trivial amount of work with a lot of risk.



Also because none of their competitors pay for such things - they all receive generous state subsidies for such work.

The entire aerospace industry is built on national subsidies, both direct and indirect.  Airbus, Boeing and Ebraer (to say nothing of China's nascent industry) all rely on government support.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Nov 2015)

Fine. Stipulated.

Corporate welfare is still wrong.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Nov 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Fine. Stipulated.
> 
> Corporate welfare is still wrong.



Fully agree.  It's what gave us gull-winged cars in New Brunswick, greenhouses in Newfoundland...


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Nov 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Fully agree.  It's what gave us gull-winged cars in New Brunswick, greenhouses in Newfoundland...



And, of course: http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/should-the-federal-government-bail-out-bombardier/


----------



## Pencil Tech (3 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There is an opportunity, given Russia's renewed attention to the Arctic, for Prime Minister designate Trudeau to reorient Canada's foreign and defence policies in directions that may please more Canadians than did Prime Minister Harper's:
> 
> First: get out of thew Middle East ~ completely out;
> 
> ...



100%


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Nov 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And, of course: http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/should-the-federal-government-bail-out-bombardier/



Read Bombardier = Power Corporation 

I say we shouldn't, but Power Corporation all but owns the Liberal party so we probably will.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Nov 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The simple answer is that you cannot carry torpedos externally on anything other than a helicopter and expect them to actually work when you need them in an environment like Canada's.
> 
> They actually do need to be protected in a heated bomb bay. That rules out most aircraft, right there.
> 
> ...



Like the army had to deal with the LSVW...the RCAF might have to deal with a 'less than optimal' solution, that benefits things like industry better than military requirements...if I had to take either of those, I'd drop the sono's, MAD and kill stores and make it 'the next generation Challenger'/CP-140A...

But I'd rather have the non-LSVW platform.  I just don't think we will get it.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Nov 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Like the army had to deal with the LSVW...the RCAF might have to deal with a 'less than optimal' solution, that benefits things like industry better than military requirements...if I had to take either of those, I'd drop the sono's, MAD and kill stores and make it 'the next generation Challenger'/CP-140A...
> 
> But I'd rather have the non-LSVW platform.  I just don't think we will get it.



Would that make it something like this?



> Danish air force planning Challenger 604 mid-life upgrade
> 
> 20 APRIL, 2015 BY: BETH STEVENSON LONDON
> 
> ...



https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/danish-air-force-planning-challenger-604-mid-life-upgrade-411400/

Or more like this?



> Sentinel R1
> 
> 
> The aircraft, Sentinel R1, is a modified version of the Global Express, which is an executive business jet manufactured by Bombardier.
> ...



http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/sentinelr1.cfm


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Nov 2015)

On that score 

Suppose the Government told the RCAF to take yet another look at the FWSAR project and suggested this:

Separate the SEARCH function from the RESCUE function.

Look for a SEARCH capable aircraft that would ADD to the capabilities of the CP-140 fleet - taking some of the patrol duties off them and increasing the number of aircraft updating the Common Intelligence Picture.  The remaining CP-140 hours could be focused on either ASW work, Anti-Vlad work or Anti-ISIL work.  (No bombs need be dropped).

Meanwhile, the RESCUE function could be handled by adding a flight of Hercs and another 6 pack of Cormorants, Chinooks or Cyclones.

Maaaaaybeeeee?

Additional Canadianization could be achieved through more MDA satellites and Canadian Space Agency.  That would leave room for some American MALE UAVs.

And punt the F35 decision until after the next election.


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Nov 2015)

Isn't the point of FWSAR to get an A/C out to locations a larger distance away, and once located, start the rescue? If you have 2 A/C, now you're having to wait on station to put the SAR Techs on the ground while the other A/C transits.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Nov 2015)

I think pollution monitoring is a task for another department.  That's me.  I like the Sentinel _but_ it's a one-trick pony;  if we are talking about a MMA/LRPA I think it, like the Aurora, needs to be able to perform multiple tasks.  We just don't have the $$ for 1-tricks (IMO).

I'll leave the thoughts on SAR assets to those who are in that business.  LRPAs are SAR back-up now when required/directed, but it isn't our bread and butter.  

The concern I have over purchasing strictly 'search' airframes is that they can do only that;  search.  You want to be able to localize, track and...if required, prosecute a contact.  Before it slips away and you lose it.


----------



## kev994 (3 Nov 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> On that score
> 
> Suppose the Government told the RCAF to take yet another look at the FWSAR project and suggested this:
> 
> ...


The patient is going to bleed out between when they are found and when they are rescued.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (3 Nov 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> On that score
> 
> Suppose the Government told the RCAF to take yet another look at the FWSAR project and suggested this:
> 
> ...



There is a reason it's called "pararescue"  

The Buffalo's have a few SARTECHs on board ready to jump with kit if they find who/what they are looking for.  

I imagine the CC130 Hs are the same.  S&R and LRP are, in reality, two unrelated functions.


----------



## GR66 (3 Nov 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I think pollution monitoring is a task for another department.  That's me.  I like the Sentinel _but_ it's a one-trick pony;  if we are talking about a MMA/LRPA I think it, like the Aurora, needs to be able to perform multiple tasks.  We just don't have the $$ for 1-tricks (IMO).
> 
> I'll leave the thoughts on SAR assets to those who are in that business.  LRPAs are SAR back-up now when required/directed, but it isn't our bread and butter.
> 
> The concern I have over purchasing strictly 'search' airframes is that they can do only that;  search.  You want to be able to localize, track and...if required, prosecute a contact.  Before it slips away and you lose it.



I think it makes sense for the aircraft to have at least some ability to respond.  Underwing torpedoes may not perform very well and a jet might not be great for low-level work, but at least the Global Express has torpedoes, can carry Harpoon, has MAD, sonobouys and can drop SAR pods, all with pretty good speed and patrol endurance.  It certainly is not as good as good as an Aurora on a one to one basis, but IF you could get them cheap enough they could make a real difference to a key defense tasking.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Nov 2015)

GR66 said:
			
		

> I think it makes sense for the aircraft to have at least some ability to respond.  Underwing torpedoes may not perform very well and a jet might not be great for low-level work, but at least the Global Express has torpedoes, can carry Harpoon, has MAD, sonobouys and can drop SAR pods, all with pretty good speed and patrol endurance.  It certainly is not as good as good as an Aurora on a one to one basis, but IF you could get them cheap enough they could make a real difference to a key defense tasking.



The advantage of the Global Express variants are they are made in Canada - where money is no object - as opposed to the Boeing P8 which is made in the US - which doesn't need our money.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Nov 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I think pollution monitoring is a task for another department.  That's me.  I like the Sentinel _but_ it's a one-trick pony;  if we are talking about a MMA/LRPA I think it, like the Aurora, needs to be able to perform multiple tasks.  We just don't have the $$ for 1-tricks (IMO).
> 
> I'll leave the thoughts on SAR assets to those who are in that business.  LRPAs are SAR back-up now when required/directed, but it isn't our bread and butter.
> 
> The concern I have over purchasing strictly 'search' airframes is that they can do only that;  search.  You want to be able to localize, track and...if required, prosecute a contact.  Before it slips away and you lose it.



yep already covered by Transport Canada


----------



## cld617 (4 Nov 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Isn't the point of FWSAR to get an A/C out to locations a larger distance away, and once located, start the rescue? If you have 2 A/C, now you're having to wait on station to put the SAR Techs on the ground while the other A/C transits.



Absolutely it is. The norm for a rescue op usually requires two assets, however two fixed wing simply cannot get it done. Fixed wing covers the majority of the ground in the search, drops SAR mbrs on scene while the helo makes its way to the site. Fixed wing asset then maneuvers into top cover position while helo brings everyone home. 

As soon as you introduce another air frame you must bring bring along the entire unit and logistics system behind them to make it work. If you've seen the latest manning lvl's in 500 series trades you'll know this simply isn't an option to be considered.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Nov 2015)

The Prime Minister's _Mandate Letter_ to the MND is here. It says, specifically:

  "In particular, I will expect you to work with your colleagues and through established legislative, regulatory, and Cabinet processes to deliver on your top priorities:

     Work with the Minister of Foreign Affairs to end Canada’s combat mission in Iraq and Syria, refocusing Canada’s efforts in the region on the training of local forces and humanitarian support.

     Ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces have the equipment they need. This includes:

       working with the Minister of Finance to maintain current National Defence spending levels, including current planned increases;
       working with the Minister of Public Services and Procurement to launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft, focusing on options that match Canada’s defence needs; and
       working with the Minister of Public Services and Procurement to invest in strengthening the Navy, while meeting the commitments that were made as part of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy.

     Work with the Minister of Foreign Affairs to renew Canada’s commitment to United Nations peace operations. This includes:

       making Canada’s specialized capabilities – from mobile medical teams, to engineering support, to aircraft that can carry supplies and personnel – available on a case-by-case basis;
       working with the Minister of Foreign Affairs to help the United Nations respond more quickly to emerging and escalating conflicts and providing well-trained personnel to international initiatives that can be quickly deployed, such as mission commanders, staff officers,
       and headquarters units; and
       leading an international effort to improve and expand the training of military and civilian personnel deployed on peace operations, while insisting that any peacekeepers involved in misconduct be held accountable by their own country and the United Nations.

     Maintain Canada’s strong commitments to the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) and to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

     Conduct an open and transparent review process to create a new defence strategy for Canada, replacing the now-outdated Canada First Defence Strategy.

     Renew Canada’s focus on surveillance and control of Canadian territory and approaches, particularly our Arctic regions, and increase the size of the Canadian Rangers.

     Work with senior leaders of the Canadian Armed Forces to establish and maintain a workplace free from harassment and discrimination.

     Work with the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence to reduce complexity, overhaul service delivery, and strengthen partnerships between National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

     Support the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in a review of existing measures to protect Canadians and our critical infrastructure from cyber-threats.

     Work with the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence to develop a suicide prevention strategy for Canadian Armed Forces personnel and veterans.

These priorities draw heavily from our election platform commitments. The government’s agenda will be further articulated through Cabinet discussions and in the Speech from the Throne when Parliament opens.

I expect you to work closely with your Deputy Minister, the Chief of Defence Staff, who has direct responsibility for the command, control, and administration of the Canadian Forces, and their senior officials to ensure that the ongoing work of your department is undertaken in a professional manner and that decisions are made in the public interest. Your Deputy Minister will brief you on issues your department may be facing that may require decisions to be made quickly. It is my expectation that you will apply our values and principles to these decisions, so that issues facing your department are dealt with in a timely and responsible manner, and in a way that is consistent with the overall direction of our government.

Our ability, as a government, to successfully implement our platform depends on our ability to thoughtfully consider the professional, non-partisan advice of public servants. Each and every time a government employee comes to work, they do so in service to Canada, with a goal of improving our country and the lives of all Canadians. I expect you to establish a collaborative working relationship with your Deputy Minister, whose role, and the role of public servants under his or her direction, is to support you in the performance of your responsibilities.

In the coming weeks, the Privy Council Office (PCO) will be contacting you to set up a meeting with PCO officials, your Deputy Minister, and the Prime Minister’s Office to further discuss your plans, commitments, and priorities."

- See more at: http://pm.gc.ca/eng/minister-national-defence-mandate-letter#sthash.hWSoiJ3f.dpuf


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Nov 2015)

My comments on the _National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy_ and, in fact, on defence in general, based on an item from Michael O'Leary's "Regimental Rogue" blog, are here. I conclude by saying: "welcome to the 1930s."


----------



## observor 69 (21 Nov 2015)

Mr.Radwanski speaks to something I have been wondering. Is the government in Ottawa floundering with the boss too soon out of town? 



"Understaffed Ottawa struggles to deliver refugee plan as Trudeau travels

It is enough to cast a bit of a surreal haze over the sunny new ways in the nation’s capital.

Staffing of the government elected over a month ago has moved at a glacial pace; as Ottawa crawls with aspiring aides optimistically working the social circuit, many ministers do not have a single political employee.

To the extent that the Prime Minister’s Office has taken shape, settling into any sort of rhythm has been made impossible by Justin Trudeau, his chief-of-staff and others spending much of the time since his swearing-in halfway around the world at international summits.

And amid all this, Mr. Trudeau’s Liberals continue to insist publicly that they can deliver the most ambitious implementation of a campaign commitment by any incoming federal government in memory: welcoming 25,000 Syrian refugees before the end of 2015.

Some files can be handled with relative ease by a political skeleton crew, leaning on the public service where necessary. Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s economic update on Friday is an example. So was quickly making good on the promise to restore the mandatory long-form census. Crafting the Speech from the Throne should not require more than a few capable people.

Planning and managing the rapid screening, processing and transfer of 25,000 people from refugee camps at a time the public holds considerable (if largely dubious) fears about threats to national security is not one of those files.

When the Liberals took office, civil servants told them that meeting the end-of-year target would be impossible. Civil servants are prone to over-manage expectations, and it is often wise for their political masters to push back. But that involves taking some ownership of the files themselves, and the Liberals really are not well-positioned to do that.

Immigration Minister John McCallum is among those cabinet members with little or no political staff. The same goes for Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale and Health Minister Jane Philpott, whose departments have key roles to play. The PMO is not yet set up to provide direction the way it usually would. So it falls to the skeptical bureaucrats to take a bigger role, with leadership also apparently to come from the armed forces.
In private conversations this week, senior Liberals sounded a little less hell-bent on meeting the deadline than they have for public consumption. Some allowed that the government probably would not be judged all that harshly if it took a couple of extra months to get to 25,000.

That they have nevertheless refused to this point to take “no” (or at least “slightly later”) for an answer on what was a fairly arbitrary number and time aimed at differentiating themselves from the Conservative government appears to owe to several considerations.

One is a view that the machinery of government responds better to an ambitious and ostensibly hard deadline than a more modest one. This logic holds that quickly acquiescing to aiming for spring would have caused the wheels to turn so slowly that 25,000 would have been achieved only next fall.

Rather than an excuse to slow down, the terrorist attacks in Paris may be an incentive for the Liberals to stay firm, to avoid lending credence to ugly anti-refugee posturing from politicians south of the border and a milder note of caution from Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall.

And as evidenced by his rush after being sworn in to implement a few campaign promises that could quickly be turned around, and refusal to reconsider ending Canadian participation in air strikes against Islamic State, Mr. Trudeau is clearly fixated on building credibility as the sort of politician who does what he campaigned on. After having to overcome the perception that he was not ready for the top job, the last thing he wants to do is look weak, or easily pushed around by the likes of Mr. Wall.

But with every day they dig in, the risk grows. If anything goes wrong, the fallout could undermine both Mr. Trudeau’s humanitarian goals and his leadership credibility.

It is an enormous amount of pressure for a government to put on itself, at a time it is not entirely clear who behind the scenes is absorbing it."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/understaffed-government-struggles-to-deliver-refugee-plan-as-trudeau-travels/article27425924/


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 Nov 2015)

Baden Guy: 





> Mr.Radwanski speaks to something I have been wondering. Is the government in Ottawa floundering with the boss too soon out of town?



You mean Gerald Butts of course.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Nov 2015)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> Mr.Radwanski speaks to something I have been wondering. Is the government in Ottawa floundering with the boss too soon out of town?



Nope, the real boss, Chretien, is still here with his gang.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Dec 2015)

What today's Speech from the Throne (SFT) says about security (and guns) - entire SFT available as attachments here.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Jun 2017)

Bumped with the latest - interesting choice of Ministers (apart from the DefMin, obviously) to make the announcement ...


> Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan and Transport Minister Marc Garneau will hold a press conference at the Cartier Square Drill Hall in Ottawa on June 7, 2017, to announce Canada’s new Defence Policy.
> 
> Following the announcement, Minister Sajjan, Minister Garneau, and Chief of Defence Staff Jonathan Vance will participate in a Q&A with media.
> 
> ...


op:


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Jun 2017)

I am curious: why does the Minister of Transport have to be present at a Defence Policy announcement?


----------



## Journeyman (3 Jun 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I am curious: why does the Minister of Transport have to be present at a Defence Policy announcement?


Credibility.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Jun 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I am curious: why does the Minister of Transport have to be present at a Defence Policy announcement?



Spaceman Marc was The Architect's fire-team buddy last time around...experience, perhaps?

G2G


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jun 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I am curious: why does the Minister of Transport have to be present at a Defence Policy announcement?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Does this also open the door for the rest of the "Public Safety" organizations/Departments/clag?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Jun 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I am curious: why does the Minister of Transport have to be present at a Defence Policy announcement?



Maybe the Army is finally getting its new trucks.  [

Actually, while there is officially no "Quebec lieutenant" to Trudeau jr., in practice, minister Garneau is everywhere and on about every subject where Quebec is concerned. I don't think the MinDef's French is at a level appropriate to field questions on a subject that complex and delicate to the Quebec press corps.

I also would not be surprised to see Mr. Garneau step into the Defence portfolio if our friendly current MinDef makes any further little slip.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Jun 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Spaceman Marc was The Architect's fire-team buddy last time around...experience, perhaps?
> 
> G2G


Not so long ago ...


----------



## Half Full (31 Jan 2018)

Latest Policy paper from Dave Perry.

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/cdfai/pages/3244/attachments/original/1517275897/Following_the_Funding_in_Strong_Secure_Engaged.pdf?1517275897

This paper hits the nail on the head with respect to the issues we are seeing/having in implementing SSE.


----------



## pbi (31 Jan 2018)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There is an opportunity, given Russia's renewed attention to the Arctic, for Prime Minister designate Trudeau to reorient Canada's foreign and defence policies in directions that may please more Canadians than did Prime Minister Harper's:
> 
> First: get out of thew Middle East ~ completely out;
> 
> ...



Having taken part in my first Arctic exercise last year, I agree 100% Given the endless policy-mongering by governments of various stripes over the years, in my opinion we are far, far below even a minimally credible military capability in the North. Tories and Liberals can share the blame quite equally. If you add to that the recent increases in Russia's arctic capabilities, and the very clearly changing climatic conditions up North (sorry climate change deniers but it seems pretty real to me, and it isn't new).

We need to be able to know what''s goimg on in our own country, and be clearly able to do something about it. I see lots of well-intentioned talk, historically and now, but not much that is credible.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Jan 2018)

To be fair, Harper brought the North back into the defense conversation, politically he let it slide as it is not a hot issue in vote rich areas which none are in the North. The Vikings also experienced climate change, the only issue there is what is causing it. Fully in agreement we have coasted on the issue since the DEW lines were built.


----------



## pbi (31 Jan 2018)

...and since we abandoned CFS Churchill, etc, etc. I wonder what our actual ability to fight in the North is, as opposed to glorified goodwill visits, expensive  photo ops and camping trips with guns. Just asking.

And, while I'm at it, since I was working mostly with various civil folks during the exercise,  I have to say that as far as I can see in general nobody Down South understands or  cares much about the North. Which IMHO is both stupid and sad.


----------



## ModlrMike (31 Jan 2018)

When the Russians and Chinese start sailing through the Davis Straight it might get some people's attention. Sadly, I fear it won't.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (31 Jan 2018)

Funny you should mention that. China just released its Arctic strategy:

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/declaring-itself-a-near-arctic-state-china-to-drive-a-polar-silk-road-off-canadas-north

However, before every body panics, I invite you to look  at the following comment by Heather Exner-Pirot, editor of the Arctic Yearbook, the article quotes:

_*Despite its legendary status as the last great world trade route, Canada’s Northwest Passage isn’t actually a great way to cross the Arctic. If China is trying to find a faster way to get container ships to the Atlantic, they would be better served by sailing through Russia’s Northeast Passage.

“People will use (the Northwest Passage) mostly for destinational shipping; going there to get resources or drop off supplies, then leaving,” said Exner-Pirot.

She added that the vast majority of China’s Arctic spending “has been taking place in Russia’s Arctic with Russia and Russian companies.”*_

And there is good reason for that. I truly wish people trying to comment on the Arctic would get themselves globes instead of maps. Looking at a globe, you can see that, as a "short cut" between Asia and Europe, it is a lot shorter (by 1200 NM for the leg from passing through the Bearing strait to Amsterdam) to go by way of the North East passage, just to the North of Russia, than through the North West passage.

If one such passage is open to navigation, so is the other one.

That, BTW, is the reason for Russia's Arctic expansion of its military: to provide for the protection of their own waters and territory (that at their closest point, are still more than a 1000 Km from Canada's territory) - not because the Russian hordes are coming over an ocean (the Arctic ocean) that is three times the size of the Mediterranean sea just for the fun of coming into our Archipelago.

That does not absolve Canada from getting the means of knowing what is going on in our side of the Arctic. 

One important aspect to note is China's recognition of international law in the Arctic. 

I will repeat again here my personal view: The faster Canada abandons its, IMHO, ridiculous position that everything within our Arctic archipelago is "internal" waters (on the fallacious claim that when frozen, the Inuits travel by foot over it so it's like "land") and acts on the basis of international law as regards Territorial Sea, Exclusive Economic Zone and International Straits, the better things will be.

The US Coast Guard has already started to set up a non-reporting separation scheme in the Bearing strait to assist commercial transits. In my mind, it is important that Canada follow suit, and do one better, by setting up a reporting traffic control scheme for the North-West passage and set up inspection stations at both ends for pollution control (and just about everybody in the world seem to agree that the Arctic ecosystem must be protected). This would do more for our sovereignty than the current ridiculous claim, especially since it is completely unsupported on the ground (or ice  ).


----------



## daftandbarmy (31 Jan 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Funny you should mention that. China just released its Arctic strategy:
> 
> http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/declaring-itself-a-near-arctic-state-china-to-drive-a-polar-silk-road-off-canadas-north
> 
> ...



And this bunch of fun is only a short hop away:

The Northern Fleet is headquartered at Severomorsk, at the top of the Kola Peninsula near Murmansk, with additional home ports at Kola, Motovskiy, Gremikha, and Ura Guba. The mission of the Northern Fleet is to defend Russia's far northwestern Arctic region surrounding the Kola Peninsula. The fleet provides home ports for thirty-seven nuclear submarines, twenty-two other submarines, forty-seven principal surface combatants, and ten coastal and smaller ships. The naval aviation contingent includes a complement of twenty Su-39 fixed-wing aircraft and ten antisubmarine warfare helicopters on board the Admiral Kuznetsov , which heads the air defense of the Barents Sea. Shore-based naval aviation includes 200 combat aircraft and sixty-four helicopters. The Northern Fleet has two naval infantry brigades, one coastal defense regiment, and an air defense missile regiment.

Situated between the Barents and White Seas just east of Norway and Finland, Murmansk was selected as the base for the Northern Fleet because it lies at the end of the Gulf Stream and is Russia's only port with unrestricted year-round access to the Atlantic. Russian naval officers monitoring the Barents Sea near the northern town of Murmansk have an English phrase to help them figure out what to say if someone unexpectedly shows up in their the territory. They can chose from one four possibilities: 1) YOU ARE ARRESTED; 2) I AM SEARCHING FOR THE SPACESHIP IN DISTRESS; 3) ARIEL BOMBING IS BEING CARRIED OUT IN THIS ZONE and 4) WE ARE GLAD TO BID YOU WELCOME ON OUR HOSPITABLE SOVIET SOIL AN WISH YOU EVERY SUCCESS. [Source: National Geographic, Miles Clark, June 1994].

http://factsanddetails.com/russia/Government_Military_Crime/sub9_5b/entry-5208.html


----------

