# CTV: Billions more for defence ...



## DavidAkin (25 Nov 2006)

[OK -- fire away and tell me what I got wrong ...   ]

*Feds earmark billions for military equipment*
_David Akin, CTV News_

The federal cabinet is poisitioned to sign off on a new master plan for the Canadian Forces that will include billions more for new military equipment.

CTV News has learned that the Department of National Defence has submitted its "Canada First Defence Strategy", a so-called defence capabilities plan that sketches out the sorts of missions the military should be prepared to carry out and what kind of role it ought to play over the next several decades in support of Canadian foreign policy and Canadian domestic policy.

At the same time, cabinet is considering four different procurement projects that are being pushed by Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor.

O'Connor is asking for cabinet approval to buy more planes, unmanned aerial vehicles, and a new Arctic patrol vessel ...
[Read the rest at: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061124/forces_plan_061124/20061124?hub=TopStories ]


----------



## HItorMiss (25 Nov 2006)

About bloody time we get the money to do the job right!


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Nov 2006)

*I hope* you’ve got it about right, David; I’m assuming you, like most journalists, good and not so good, have useful contacts _inside the Greenbelt_ in Ottawa.  (I wish you – all journalists – did not have such contacts.  I wish the bureaucracy could do its work, go home, play with the kids, etc, without feeling the need to discuss the day’s work in public.  Oh, well, I also wish I would win the lottery.)

I wish someone would explain that the “billions” (and *I hope* there will be many, many billions) will be spent over many years on a fairly vast array of projects – a few highly visible, many not so.

I’m sure almost all Canadians, including most military people, will find something to support, something to oppose and much to consider and debate when the _plan_ is made public.

Stay tuned to Army.ca for some informed comment – and some idle speculation, too.


----------



## Magravan (25 Nov 2006)

You typoed Positioned


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Nov 2006)

Now says "poised" in the website........we just got hired as CTV's proof readers.


----------



## 284_226 (25 Nov 2006)

DavidAkin said:
			
		

> [OK -- fire away and tell me what I got wrong ...   ]



Not so much _wrong_, but there's something amusing I noticed, at least from a former sailor's perspective.  

The photo at upper left is captioned "An Arctic Patrol Vessel is one of the priorities for purchase", while the photo is of a pre-TRUMP Tribal class destroyer (note the "bunny funnels" and M22 radars), probably HMCS Iroquois or Athabaskan - making the photo 15+ years old.  A photo of a icebreaker might have been more appropriate, considering the Tribals don't have any ice-breaking capability other than maybe light brash ice.


----------



## Mike Baker (25 Nov 2006)

Well, I hope we do get these UAV's, it will do wonders for us in A-Stan.


----------



## Armymedic (25 Nov 2006)

The only mistake I see is your use of anything MP Dawn Black says.

I don't see the loyal opposition's defence critic from the Liberal party speaking up.

BTW, which UAVs are they talking about...Predators, Spewer[sp], or Skylarks. 3 totally different platforms, capable of three totally different missions.


----------



## DavidAkin (25 Nov 2006)

Magravan said:
			
		

> You typoed Positioned



Well, I did ask,  didn't I?  

Thanks!  

For the record -- I made the typo when cutting and pasting to this site ....


----------



## Cloud Cover (25 Nov 2006)

First I heard of the frigate. Can you tell us more about that David?


----------



## DavidAkin (25 Nov 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> First I heard of the frigate. Can you tell us more about that David?



Not just yet, I'm afraid. 

Don't mean to be cagey but, as CTV pays my bills, I ought to make sure that  some  of the other stuff I've learned about these proposals ought to show up there first.

An armed icebreaker, though, is out, I've been told, for reasons of cost, and what they're calling an Arctic Patrol Vessel --- something that would be armed but slightly smaller than a frigate and that could operate in 'fresh ice'  -- is in.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Nov 2006)

Again, not so much a criticism as a comment in line with what 284_226 said in terms of choices by your photo editor.

Below are three ice-capable Patrol Vessels with price tags closer to the 100 Million Dollar mark.

Top to bottom
- The Norwegian "KVS Svalbard"
http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMII/MMIIMar12.html

- The New Zealand Multi-Role Vessel "HMNZS Canterbury"
 http://www.navy.mil.nz/visit-the-fleet/project-protector/mrv-launch.htm

- The Danish "Arctic Patrol Vessel" currently under construction and presumably what they will be using to get to Hans Island.
http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/NavyNews/2006/1120_NewOffShorePat.htm

What better sign of "Co-operation" in the arctic than to match the Danish "enemy" by buying the same vessel that they will use?  Then they can more easily accomplish the annual swap of Akvavit for Canadian Club.


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Nov 2006)

whiskey601: lots of discussion of ships for Arctic at these threads:

Naval Icebreakers
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38894.0.html

Forces may ice ships
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42397.0.html

news story on the coastal patrol boats
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/44412.0.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Nov 2006)

Hi Mark  ;D


----------



## NavComm (25 Nov 2006)

I don't see what the big 'secret' is. The ITEE that just took place and is reported by Virginia Beaton at www.tridentnews.ca is just one example of the not-so-secret excercises that the military is conducting.

The big question, IMO, is whether or not Canadians want to invest in their military.

I say the more (positive) press the better, if it convinces Canadians that tax dollars are well-spent and badly needed to bring our military up to the standards of our allies.


----------



## GAP (25 Nov 2006)

I think that we are still reverting back to the "them" and "us" mentality whenever articles like this come out. Each time upgrades in equipment are mentioned, missions assessed, structure changes occur, it is always written in the "they" context. 

This is not some conspiracy, or elite club/society group; these are Canadians wanting equipment to do their job quickly and efficiently. Their job is first and formost protecting Canadians and Canada. Successive previous governments have treated the CF as a "them" block, and have periodically cut back their funds and stretched out the life of their equipment to the point a lot of it is pure legacy stuff. 

How would you like to do all your reporting and typing on a 386MHz computer. That's the real life comparison. It will get the job done, just at twice the labor and lack of efficiency.

Readers should be introduced to these purchases and changes as though it is theirs. Because it is.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (25 Nov 2006)

David, I just wanted to say "kudos" for coming here to ask the questions in the first place.  

By doing that alone, you've differentiated yourself from the vast majority who have neither the interest nor inclination to even care if their report is in any way accurate.

My one request is to please put provide more context in your reporting as although most on this board understand how the new acquisitions fit into the current mix both in terms of kit and tactical necessity, most civilians will only see the $$$.

In short, provide the "Why do we need it?" clarification:

UAV's - "Could prove very useful in surveillance of Aghanistan's roads to spot Taliban trying to place IED's and mines which have resulted in the vast majority of casualties amongst deployed NATO forces.", etc.

Armed Ice Breaker/Ice-Hardended Frigate - "Projections show a future dramatic increase in traffic through this region as the polar ice caps melt.  It is therefore essential that we begin to assert control over that waterway as it opens as at present only Canada recognizes this passage as Canadian Territorial Waters.  The Chinese, Russians and Americans all consider it to be an international waterway.  In short, if we do not assert sovereignty and allow this traffic to continue without oversight, then we run the risk of losing any claim we once had."

Bottom Line:  As a journalist, I would ask that you also take on the role of educator putting aside the "gotcha journalism" in place of providing real educational experiences for your readers.  That is present not only facts & figures but also the model of how the pieces all fit together and why they should be important to Canadians.

Best wishes David....


Matthew.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Nov 2006)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> David, I just wanted to say "kudos" for coming here to ask the questions in the first place.
> 
> By doing that alone, you've differentiated yourself from the vast majority who have neither the interest nor inclination to even care if their report is in any way accurate.



+1 to Matthew and David


----------



## Mike Baker (25 Nov 2006)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Armed Ice Breaker/Ice-Hardended Frigate - "Projections show a future dramatic increase in traffic through this region as the polar ice caps melt.  It is therefore essential that we begin to assert control over that waterway as it opens as at present only Canada recognizes this passage as Canadian Territorial Waters.  The Chinese, Russians and Americans all consider it to be an international waterway.  In short, if we do not assert sovereignty and allow this traffic to continue without oversight, then we run the risk of losing any claim we once had."


This has not occured to me. Perhaps we should go in this direction insted, or find some way to do both.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (25 Nov 2006)

The SAR aircraft and UAVs have been on the books for some time and aren't new.

However, the thoughts on the Arctic vessel are new, and I can't for the life of me remember a push for a Light Utility Aircraft... ???

As one who routinely rails against journalistic laziness and lack of research, it is a relief to see good, detailed reporting on defence issues.


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Nov 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin: Utility aircraft were in the Liberal 2005 budget:
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/news/crew/04-05/04_e.asp



> Utility aircraft for the North
> 
> The federal budget also announced funding for new utility aircraft for operations in the North. The Government of Canada has placed increased emphasis on Canada’s northern regions, and the decision to acquire new utility aircraft to operate in this environment will enable the Air Force to replace the Twin Otters and maintain the ability to continue to operate in the North.



Now the Bombardier Q Series (ex-Dash 8; easy error, David) can do most of the missions the Twotters do in the north, but not the STOL missions (a small part of the total).  If the Qs are bought what does the STOL missions?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## observor 69 (25 Nov 2006)

More on this topic at: 

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23889.0.html

I was at CFB Summerside when the Buffalo replaced the old Albatross SAR aircraft. 
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/historical/albatrosslst_e.asp

In almost every respect the Buff was grossly inferior to the WWII era Albatross, range, all up weight and navigation suite come first to mind. At the time the USCG was using Herc's.  And yes we have managed at great expense to modify and equip the BUff to do a better job. 
Let's get a fully mission capable FWSAR aircraft this time.


----------



## R933ex (25 Nov 2006)

The STOL issue with the twin may be moot. Currently 440 doesn't do allot of off strip flying, no float work and mostly workhorse duties throughout the North so the need isn't really there. In addition only 2 active runways within the North will not take the Dash ( and these are so far off the beaten track that 440 very rarely deploys to them, its usually chartered out) so when you factor in load capacity, distances to be travelled the DASH 8 is more then suitable replacement.


----------



## Jantor (25 Nov 2006)

Would something like a CASA 212 work better in the utility roll with it's rear ramp? I've seen pictures of the Dash-7 Combi being loaded with a forklift through the side door and looks a little awkward.









Grrr...spelling


----------



## R933ex (25 Nov 2006)

I used to work part time loading and unloading AC up here and it does gets to be a pain when trying to load a truck into a DASH 7 or DASH 8 combie. However the main clients for the Military Airlift support up here are Ranger instructors and cadets, and they rarely have loads that can't be accommodated by the main cargo doors.


----------



## tasop_999 (25 Nov 2006)

Just throwing this out there for anyone who might have the technical knowledge, were the CPFs not designed with 'light arctic operations' in mind? Might the government produce another version of the CPF that has been strengthened for ice operations rather than going overseas to find a suitable ship?

On another note, well done to David Akin for using this site.  Interesting report.


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Nov 2006)

David: From your story:



> "This government is doing so much in secret with no accountability to the Canadian taxpayer, to Canadian Parliament," said Dawn Black, the NDP Member of Parliament for New Westminster-Port Coquitlam and her party's defence critic. "I'm frankly appalled that they would be letting these kinds of contracts without at least coming to the Defence Committee of the House of Commons. Everything done in secret! I don't understand it. What is it that they're afraid of?"



It seems to me more context is required in the reporting.  For the equipments you mention in the story it appears that there will be real competitions for all (except maybe the Bombardier Q Series as utility aircraft!).  No contracts are now being let in these cases.  Why do you quote Ms. Black without making these facts clear?  Where is the secrecy?  

What is interesting in these cases is that there are genuine alternatives, as really was not the case for the C-17s, C-130Js and CH-47s.   Your story might have pointed out this distinction.

The one scandal will be if the Arctic ships are built in Canada at excessive cost and time--it's almost certain the JSS vessels will be built here with the same penalties, but let's not add to the problem.  But then politics with ship acquisitions rules all.  That the government can well be called on---perhaps you might consider a story later on this issue?

In any event, bravo for posting here.  We certainly all need to educate one other.

Finally, where are the protests by mayors et al. over this spewing of lead into the waters?
http://www.lookoutnewspaper.com/archive/20061120/index.shtml

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Nov 2006)

Go gentle on her, FOR ONCE, at least she got something right.

Quote,
" I don't understand it."


----------



## Loachman (25 Nov 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Go gentle on her, FOR ONCE, at least she got something right.
> 
> Quote,
> " I don't understand it."


Now if we could convince all journalists everywhere to default to that when quoting her in the future...


----------



## peaches (25 Nov 2006)

This is all a great start, C17's, C130J's, new ships, Chinooks.  Now we need some new Leopards, F35 JSF and a squadron or two of attack helos.  There is no resaon under the sun a small military cannot be effective and lethal......


----------



## Mike Baker (25 Nov 2006)

peaches said:
			
		

> This is all a great start, C17's, C130J's, new ships, Chinooks.  Now we need some new Leopards, F35 JSF and a squadron or two of attack helos.  There is no resaon under the sun a small military cannot be effective and lethal......


If we could get some F35's which wont be in service until 2010 (?not quite sure) and have one or two squadrons of attack helocopters(good idea), why can't we get something like M1A2's instead of more Leos?


----------



## a_majoor (25 Nov 2006)

Michael Baker said:
			
		

> If we could get some F35's which wont be in service until 2010 (?not quite sure) and have one or two squadrons of attack helocopters(good idea), why can't we get something like M1A2's instead of more Leos?



What is really needed is a thourough defence review and perhaps a new White Paper. Much of the buying (current and proposed) is reflexive in nature; purchasing things to make up for immediate needs in theater or replace kit which is so old it is virtually unservicable. With a defence review and White Paper, we will forcast what we expect to do in the next decade or so, and then decide what equipment is needed to fulfill the needs.


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Nov 2006)

Michael Baker said:
			
		

> why can't we get something like M1A2's instead of more Leos?



I've put it elsewhere, but a newer leo would be more accomodating for some pretty odd reasons.  Firstly, the learning curve from Leo C2 to a Leo 2Ax would be easier, though obviously any tanker worth his weight in salt could easily adapt to any M1 variant.  More obscure is the fact that Leo 2Ax are identical in width to a Leo C2 (helps logisticians plan things like tanker bays here in Canada, in garrison, which should be a factor: it's no use to buy a tank you cannot park indoors).  Still, any M1 variant (with 120mm main gun, naturally!) would be good for us, IMHO.

Still, A_Majoor makes an excellent point regarding longer term thinking, although the reflexive nature of recent procurements would be unneccessary had Canada had the foresight many MANY moons ago to phase in this big purchases.


----------



## Mike Baker (25 Nov 2006)

Captain (Army)  Scarlet said:
			
		

> I've put it elsewhere, but a newer leo would be more accomodating for some pretty odd reasons.  Firstly, the learning curve from Leo C2 to a Leo 2Ax would be easier, though obviously any tanker worth his weight in salt could easily adapt to any M1 variant.  More obscure is the fact that Leo 2Ax are identical in width to a Leo C2 (helps logisticians plan things like tanker bays here in Canada, in garrison, which should be a factor: it's no use to buy a tank you cannot park indoors).  Still, any M1 variant (with 120mm main gun, naturally!) would be good for us, IMHO.
> 
> Still, A_Majoor makes an excellent point regarding longer term thinking, although the reflexive nature of recent procurements would be unneccessary had Canada had the foresight many MANY moons ago to phase in this big purchases.


Ahh I see where you and A_Majoor are comming from. So will our new purchases be considered "thinking ahead"?


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Nov 2006)

Well, I'd call it "managing chaos" rather than "thinking ahead".  I suspect, however, that there is some foresight in these procurements.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Nov 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> What is really needed is a thourough defence review and perhaps a new White Paper. Much of the buying (current and proposed) is reflexive in nature; purchasing things to make up for immediate needs in theater or replace kit which is so old it is virtually unservicable. With a defence review and White Paper, we will forcast what we expect to do in the next decade or so, and then decide what equipment is needed to fulfill the needs.



Agreed ----  Coincidentally David noted this:



> CTV News has learned that the Department of National Defence has submitted its "Canada First Defence Strategy", a so-called defence capabilities plan that sketches out the sorts of missions the military should be prepared to carry out and what kind of role it ought to play over the next several decades in support of Canadian foreign policy and Canadian domestic policy.



It looks like a step along the way.


----------



## Mike Baker (25 Nov 2006)

Well, thats good to know, I guess. I hope it work's out with our new hardware.


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Nov 2006)

For what it's worth, I think a true defence/foreign policy review would come up with something like this as the logical conclusion: the Army will be the main military implement of Canadian foreign policy for the forseeable future and, given that military threats to our homeland are small, the CF should be transformed, in most respects, into a smaller version of the US Marine Corps.  With appropriate air and naval supporting assets.  Which seems to be in many aspects the way things are going.

I suspect Gen. Hillier may have a similar view, though he dare not say it.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Hawker (25 Nov 2006)

Interesting that there is a separate requirement for a SAR and a utility transport plane...or is this done so that Bombardier gets a slice of the contract without having a plane that the SAR types would be happy with?


----------



## George Wallace (26 Nov 2006)

Captain (Army)  Scarlet said:
			
		

> I've put it elsewhere, but a newer leo would be more accomodating for some pretty odd reasons.  Firstly, the learning curve from Leo C2 to a Leo 2Ax would be easier, though obviously any tanker worth his weight in salt could easily adapt to any M1 variant.  More obscure is the fact that Leo 2Ax are identical in width to a Leo C2 (helps logisticians plan things like tanker bays here in Canada, in garrison, which should be a factor: it's no use to buy a tank you cannot park indoors).   Still, any M1 variant (with 120mm main gun, naturally!) would be good for us, IMHO.
> 
> Still, A_Majoor makes an excellent point regarding longer term thinking, although the reflexive nature of recent procurements would be unneccessary had Canada had the foresight many MANY moons ago to phase in this big purchases.



This is a very important point that is usually overlooked.  The Americans found out when they started deploying their tanks to Germany that now they had to build twice the number of Tank Hangars then what they currently had.  The M1 exhausts were burning the paint off of the tanks in the bays behind them.  They could no longer back tanks into bays opposite each other, so they now required twice the facilities to house the same number of tanks.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Nov 2006)

Despite my protestations elsewhere in Army.ca about inefficient, indeed inept procurement policies and practices, riddled, most often, with political pork-barrelling, I think we all have to accept two *facts*:

1. Canadians, as a general rule, are ill-educated and, in matters of defence, industry and economics, nearly illiterate.  The consequence is that they care less about just how much of their money is wasted, sometimes *stolen* would not be too strong a word, just as long as they can believe that they are getting some immediate, local benefit.  It is vital to remember that Canadian have to overarching defining characteristics: *greed* and *envy*.  They covet everything that the _better-offs_ (usually Americans or Torontonians) have but they reject the notion that they should have to work for it.

2. Canadians vote.

It is good news that DND is going to get some (maybe even quite a bit) of what is on its shopping list.  It is too much to expect that a minority government is not going to follow time honoured Canadian traditions and use major procurement, especially defence procurement, to buy votes with the voters' own money.

Ship building in the St Lawrence and aircraft manufacturing in Québec are, by now, considered to be *divine rights* in _la belle province_ and amongst a large percentage of the civil servants in Ottawa.  Neither group can conceive of doing _business_ any other way.  I am sure that we will get suitable, albeit fairly expensive, ice-capable warships and a JSS or _big honkin' ship_ or whatever, from _Industrie Davie_ at Levis – with whatever production _Davie_ cannot manage being subcontracted to Atlantic or Pacific yards.  I recall, many years ago, that my old boss (NDHQ in the late '70s) Terry Liston (R22eR) had quite a (uniformed) cheering section when (in the mid/late '80s) he worked for _Davie_ and was trying to convince Ottawa of a need for a SMART ship (*S*trategic *M*ulti-role *A*uxilliary *R*esupply and *T*ransport – I think).  I cannot remember much about it except that it would allow us to deploy a large (1,000+ soldiers - 200+/- vehicles) battle group anywhere in the world and insert it by a mix of landing craft (conventional and hovercraft) and ship-borne helicopters; just, I think, what General Hillier wants 20 years later.

I am equally sure that the air force will find some good uses for some _Bombardier_ aircraft.  I also recall that some (quite a few) of my air force colleagues were, in the '80s and '90s, pressing the _centre_ to design and buy _Canadair_ and _de Havilland_ aircraft for a variety of SAR, utility, transport, coastal patrol and EW tasks.  I'm sure that faction is still alive and well.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Nov 2006)

The next item is to get hold of whatever paper constitutes the "Canada First" strategy.  A defence policy which emphasizes Canada rather than expeditionary operations won't necessarily be army-heavy and should be expected to include money to create and maintain infrastructure and equipment suited to all the sorts of non-pointy things in the article.


----------



## mjohnston39 (26 Nov 2006)

> I am sure that we will get suitable, albeit fairly expensive, ice-capable warships and a JSS or big honkin' ship or whatever, from Industrie Davie at Levis



The team which included Davie was not selected as one of the 2 finalists for the JSS design. 

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/53823.0.html

But it sounds that there will be opportunity to spread ship building contracts around the country though...


----------



## aesop081 (26 Nov 2006)

mjohnston39 said:
			
		

> The team which included Davie was not selected as one of the 2 finalists for the JSS design.
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/53823.0.html
> 
> But it sounds that there will be opportunity to spread ship building contracts around the country though...



....and as usual , such policy will result in insufficient work for any single shipyard to remain open.  Seems to me that some people in this forum still beleive that military contracts should be used as economic instruments and that political considerations outweigh the needs of the forces.  I guess that, even with everything going on today, the apple doesnt fall far from the tree.


----------



## observor 69 (26 Nov 2006)

"Key elements of the government's "Canada First" defence strategy were unveiled throughout the week by Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor, Public Works Minister Michael Fortier, Industry Minister Maxime Bernier and Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day. "

http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=5&id=1229

Personally I think our history with White Papers was a bust.  When Martin started downsizing and starving the military the White Paper was superfluous. The past few years of Hillier speaking to clear operational needs seems to be working well. This spirit is being carried forward in the " Canada First " defence strategy which appears to be a document created by Can Force and DND people who know what they are talking about.
How refreshing!


----------



## Donut (26 Nov 2006)

As to the White Papers, I believe that the 1989(?) White paper, which, I believe, called for the maintenance of balanced, multi-purpose, combat capable forces was a decent piece of policy, iirc.

It was the regurgitation of that same policy, while ignoring it and simultaneously slashing the capabilities of the CF, brought to you courtesy of the Liberal Party of Canada in their 1994 Paper, which was  the bust.  Iirc, the '94 WP was also the document that gave us "Total Force", too.  Again, didn't really work out that well initially.

I don't think that the "Canada First" policy necessarily refers to the "regional offsets" and other programs which suck resources and don't necessarily deliver any value to the CF, but rather that Canada's needs will be placed first; we're not building a force for the use of the UN, or other supra-national organization, but a force to be used to further Canada's position on the world stage, to meet Canadian specific needs first, which includes a robust expeditionary capacity (interoperable within ABCA, and, to a lesser extent, NATO).  It also includes an enhanced capacity to defend our sovereignty.

I think it is envisioned by the CPC as a means to achieve what they feel should be national objectives, such as strengthening our world position diplomatically, economically, and militarily.

DF

Edit, Typo (now why can't I see them against the green background?)


----------



## peaches (26 Nov 2006)

I don't know why we need to constantly "review" the capabilities of the military, white paper after us less white paper.  If you *(politicians)* don't know what a military is for by now, then.... come on.

The organization of the CF is not and should not be rocket science.  We have a small military, we need it to grow larger into the 70K range as has been stated by the current Govt.  We need a mid size, *combat* capable multi role military, simple!!

*Navy:  * 

West & East coast, City Class patrol frigates (we already have), new Air Defence Destroyers to replace the current three, submarines (we already have), and the new supply/support ships (coming) able to support a deployed Battle Group and act as a floating supply depot, hospital & C2 platform, & that can support a Tac Hel flight.

We need a naval presents in the north, Fob Bay would be an excellent choice.  If Canada wants to keep the North Canadian, we need serious military presents their.  The Danes have more military assets in Greenland than we have across the whole north (remember they took an island from us a few years ago.

*Army,* again it is simple.  We need to be able to fight and win in all levels of warfare from low to high intensity.    FIGHT WITH THE BEST, AGAINST THE BEST!!.  Establish 4 brigades;

*1st Armoured Brigade*, armoured Recce battalion, a MBT battalion, 2 mech infantry battalions, and SP arty battalion (M109A6 or PH2000 with MLRS) 

*two medium brig*ades (based on the US Army SBCT model) with LAVIII instead of Styker, M777 & HIMARS arty.

Fourth & last a *light brigade*, centered on the 3 Light Infantry Battalion, LG 1 arty, co-located with the CSOR, and the Chinooks, and you have an Airmobile/Air Assault brigade.  It can move anywhere in Canada or abroad quickly by C17 & C130J

Along with the 4th AD Regt you have the makings of a Division here.  If you have a situation like the first gulf war, you can deploy the armoured brigade, attach it to a US Army ArDiv, of British ArDiv, or deploy the whole "Canadian Division" and fight a heavy war.  1 Armoured Brigade breaks the  "Republican Guard" wide open, the Medium brigade in LAVIII's mop up, Airmobile brigade guards flanks, leaps ahead to seize key objectives.  

Here's an idea, instead of supply trains following the tanks & IFVs, how about we reverse it and have the tanks/IFV fight there way to their suppiles.  Airmobile forces seize and airfield or objective ahead of the main force (behind enemy lines), hold the objective, Chinooks, C17's & C130Js come in with supplies that are waiting for our troops when they get their. 

Would we not have more flexability with this idea.  Could we not conduct operations in desert, jungle, arctic, woodlands, Urban areas etc...

*Airforce;*

Again not to complicated, first and formost we need to defend Canada, that's job 1 for all of us.  For that (in the Air Force) we need an air defence system intergraded with the US, we have that.  Next we need fighters, we have them, we just need more.  For a *fighter force * we need a minimum of 5 fully equipped squadrons, that's 24 jets each, plus maint spares.  Basing, easy, 4 FW Cold Lake with 1 Sqn dedicated to NORAD, and the other dedicated to deployment, 3 FW Bagotville, same set up, with the fifth sqn at Cold Lake as the OTS (Operational Training Squadron) that acts as NORAD reserve in an emergency.  Wedgetail E737 AWACS (like the Aussies just purchased) would be nice, perhaps 4 or 5. 

*Air Transport*, C17s, C130J's and the C130H's we will continue to use, great.  However, instead of Dash8 utility aircraft, why not spend that $$ on another C17, or a few more C130J's, or even use the $$ to modify or new C130's with tanker pods.  Dash8, civilian airplane, nice but we are not civilians.

*Maritime Air*, again great purchase of H92, but the Auroras will need replacing.  as well, if we are going to operate in the arctic more often, perhaps 21 Auroras is not enough.  The US Navy is currently working with Boeing on a P3 replacement aircraft the P8 Maritime patrol plane, based on the 737 (good info at Boeing.com).  Why not give the CP140's air to ground capability with JDAM bombs, stand off missiles, the US Navy has done it to theirs 

*Tactical Helicopter*, again not hard.  Establish two Tac Hel Wings, one in the west, one in the east (one co-located with the Light Brigade).  Give each wing an fully equipped attack helo sqn (AH64 or AH1Z), and a fully equipped Transport Helo sqn, (Blackhawks & Chinooks) as well as a UAV sqn.  Tac Hel need to become a combat arm, big time.  I spent time in a Tac Hel sqn, Tac Hel is near & dear to me, they need combat attack & transport helicopters, not civie copters painted green.  Then create a fifth sqn, the Spec Ops Sqn for CSOR & JTF-2

*Lastly, SAR*, here's a really hard question, just thinking outside the box here so don't jump me, but should the Airforce (combat air arm) really be doing domestic SAR.  Is this really our job, or is it the job of the *Canadian Coast Guard*.  Should we not hand this responsibility over to them.  Retain the capability until the CCG is ready, aid in there training, assist them in future operations if they need us, but once they are ready, it's their show.  Not trying to dis anyone, these guys do an amazing job, just thinking outside the box.  Australia recently contracted it's domestic SAR operations out the a company call Australian Coast Watch.  They are responsible for SAR and maritime patrol.  Just an idea.

In terms of COMBAT capability the Airforce is in the worst position.  With the exception of the too few F18's we have, we have managed to completely "de-fang" our Airforce. 

Where did I get this idea, by looking at our allies.  The US military has armoured divisions, mech divisions, light, air assault & airborne divisions.  The Brits have several armoured brigades, mech brigades, light & airmobile brigades, as do the Australians, even the Dutch, there is no excuse under the sun that we cannot equip our military properly.  We are a filthy rich country, an energy superpower, we have the $$, just no vision and no will it seems to spend some of it on the military. We are the second largest land mass on earth, we have to do better, this is just my thoughts.  Don't ponce on me please, I realize we do not have the troop numbers now, but perhaps this is what we should be building towards.  Just my thoughts.............


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (26 Nov 2006)

Peaches
You missed some of our Navy assets and roles...the Naval Reserve.
12 Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs which we have) as mine hunters, route surveyors and platforms for side scan sonars.
Naval Control of shipping and Coastal Defence. We need to beef up our Naval Reserves as well. 

I liked the rest of your post. ;D


----------



## aesop081 (26 Nov 2006)

We dont have 21 Auroras either......we have 18


----------



## peaches (26 Nov 2006)

I know we have 18 CP140's, I included the CP140A's also.  I feel strongly that we have too few Maritime patrol assets, you should check out the boeing site, ref the P8.  I also know about the Naval reserve and their 12 vessels, sorry about forgetting them.  I read an interesting article recently about a proposal to give them to the Coast Guard as patrol cutters.  My whole point is that we should be a combat military, combat!!  Equip for it, train for it, be ready for it.  Does not mean we have to love it!  

I am not a warmonger, but wars happen, deal with it.  We need to deal with it, and I feel at least in the Airforce we are falling behind.  Just some of my thoughts, we often say there is no vision in the CF, here's mine, let me know what you think.  Small militaries can be effective, if they are lethal...

Here's a thought to throw out there ref SAR, why by SAR fixed wing, why not just outfit all SAR Sqns with Chinooks or more Cormorants, even in Yellowknife??  Thoughts.......


----------



## aesop081 (26 Nov 2006)

peaches said:
			
		

> I know we have 18 CP140's, I included the CP140A's also.  I feel strongly that we have too few Maritime patrol assets, you should check out the boeing site, ref the P8.



I fly the CP-140 so i have followed the MMA project (a.k.a. P-8) closely thanks.  We no longer have 3 CP-140A Arcturus either.  One is now permanently a groud training aid for technician courses.  The 2 CP-140As that remain will be retired as we cannot afford to upgrade them they do not carry weapons and they do not have any ASW sensors other than the APS-507 radar and serve little other purpose than train pilots and FEs.  I agree with you , however, that we have too few MPAs in this country considering the size of our AORs.


----------



## peaches (26 Nov 2006)

I heard that they were standing down the 140A's, did not know it had already happened.  Yes, far too few MPA assets.  We talk to you folks here outta North bay when you do your patrols.  When I was on AWACS, worked with USN P3's they carried Maverick AGM's and SLAM missiles for ground attack, are we doing any of that in our upgrade???


----------



## aesop081 (26 Nov 2006)

peaches said:
			
		

> I heard that they were standing down the 140A's, did not know it had already happened.  Yes, far too few MPA assets.  We talk to you folks here outta North bay when you do your patrols.  When I was on AWACS, worked with USN P3's they carried Maverick AGM's and SLAM missiles for ground attack, are we doing any of that in our upgrade???



PM inbound


----------



## peaches (26 Nov 2006)

I was talking to a west coast Demon yesturday.


----------



## Zoomie (26 Nov 2006)

peaches said:
			
		

> Here's a thought to throw out there ref SAR, why by SAR fixed wing, why not just outfit all SAR Sqns with Chinooks or more Cormorants, even in Yellowknife??  Thoughts.......



As soon as a RWSAR asset can attain 325KIAS, until then you need a fast search platform with the legs to go far distances and at altitudes in excess of 10,000' ASL.


----------



## aesop081 (26 Nov 2006)

peaches said:
			
		

> I was talking to a west coast Demon yesturday.



Thanks.......i will keep my comments on this via PM


----------



## peaches (26 Nov 2006)

Copy Zoomie, thanks.........


----------



## Rescue Randy (27 Nov 2006)

There are a few reasons why the Rotary Wing cannot replace the Fixed Wing in SAR - besides the issue of transit speed where something over 200 Knots is required, the fact is that helicopters cannot handle the same amount of ice accretion that fixed wing can.  They do not have the range of a fixed wing, and would require a Air to Air Refuelling if they were to transit for long distances - which means that you would require a Fixed Wing as well to do the refuelling.  Also, the reason that 10,000 ft was used in a previous post is not because the helicopters cannot fly higher than that, it is because they do not have supplementary oxygen for the crews and passengers, which is required above that altitude. A further factor is that helicopters are significantly more expensive than fixed wing aircraft, if you start comparing the cost of a Cormorant or Chinook (acquisition and maintenance) to the cost of a twin engine tactical transport, the "dollars" argument rapidly gets very significant.  This is especially true when chasing the relatively few defense dollars that Canada will have.  Billions do not go far when you start buying big ticket items.
Finally, the transit speed is significant, although I would take issue with the 325 Knots as being overstated, anything over the rated speed of the Buffalo (228 Knots) would suffice.  You should note that none of the current FWSAR aircraft fly at 325 Knots, and even the C-130J, which supposedly is rated at 360 Knots, is only flown at about 310 in practise due to the engine damage at the higher speed.  The 325 Knot speed is contained in a C-27J glossy brochure, but is not borne out in fact - that airframe will probably have a maximum viable speed of about 270 Knots as it uses a similar (although admittedly not identical) engine to the C-130J, and will probably lose about 50 Knots off its advertised top end speed as well.


----------



## Babbling Brooks (27 Nov 2006)

David asked for feedback, so here it is: check your sources, Dave.

The defence capabilities plan hasn't even been completed, let alone submitted to anyone with the ability to act upon it.  Whoever leaked that info to you got it wrong.

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/11/jumping-gun.html


----------



## CrazyCanuck (28 Nov 2006)

I don’t understand the continuing preoccupation with armed icebreakers, as I read it this plan seems to state that we will only be getting one, and a small one at that. Last time I checked the artic was rather large. The modern frigate costs about 1.2 billion dollars to build, whereas a German U212/214 costs about 400 million (US), so for the price of one frigate we would be able to buy 3 submarines. This would mean that we would have more resources at our disposal to defend and monitor the arctic, less crew which is good for a navy that decommissions ships for the lack of sailors (Huron) and would probably go over better with taxpayers as they see us getting 3 for 1. The only downside I see is an inability to land large groups of soldiers on Hans island and we would lose the ablility to throw flags out of helicopters.


----------



## jimmy742 (28 Nov 2006)

I must admit this idea of a single patrol vessel is somewhat baffling Why only one? Wouldn't you require two, as a minimum, be effective operations wise i.e one in port for maintenance etc...and the other deployed? To me, it's about as silly as having only one CPF or submarine.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Nov 2006)

With regard to the one Patrol Vessel.

Might it not be an idea to buy one vessel, off the shelf so to speak, of a type that is currently in service, for something about 50-100 Million dollars, and find out how much it can do in terms of operating in the North?

Or should we do the Canadian thing?  Spend 10 years preparing an encyclopedia of specifications, another 5 years negotiating a contract for 20 vessels, ultimately buy 12 vessels from a favoured yard that hasn't built a vessel in 20 years, use a pattern that nobody else uses and ultimately discover that because of manufacturing defects and specification oversights and errors that the vessels need to come in for a Life Extension project as soon as the last one hits the water?

100 Million Dollars and 2 year delivery with more possible if the vessel proves practicable?
Or 5 Billion Dollars for vessels that will be delivered in 15 years and need to be extensively modified or reassigned?

I like the idea of one vessel.  Much like I like the idea of renting the Gunston Hall from the Yanks to figure out if it would be of use to us.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (28 Nov 2006)

peaches said:
			
		

> I know we have 18 CP140's, I included the CP140A's also.  I feel strongly that we have too few Maritime patrol assets, you should check out the boeing site, ref the P8.  I also know about the Naval reserve and their 12 vessels, sorry about forgetting them.  I read an interesting article recently about a proposal to give them to the Coast Guard as patrol cutters.  My whole point is that we should be a combat military, combat!!  Equip for it, train for it, be ready for it.  Does not mean we have to love it!
> 
> I am not a warmonger, but wars happen, deal with it.  We need to deal with it, and I feel at least in the Airforce we are falling behind.  Just some of my thoughts, we often say there is no vision in the CF, here's mine, let me know what you think.  Small militaries can be effective, if they are lethal...
> 
> Here's a thought to throw out there ref SAR, why by SAR fixed wing, why not just outfit all SAR Sqns with Chinooks or more Cormorants, even in Yellowknife??  Thoughts.......



It would be crazy to give them to the Coast Guard. the Coast Guard is not a military or a police agency in this country. they maintain navigational aids, break ice in the north and in inland water ways. It's a unionized outfit that does not have the same mandate as the US Coast Guard unless they change that...but why?


----------



## CrazyCanuck (28 Nov 2006)

This may sound really naive but how much use are the Kingston's to the Navy anyway? They can't top 15 knots and are armed with a 60 yr old gun that is more likely to just annoy whoever you are shooting at. Wouldn't they be more use to the CCG because of their research potential? Plus they are steel hulled so they are more likely to be a minesweeper for only one mine.


----------



## jimmy742 (29 Nov 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> With regard to the one Patrol Vessel.
> 
> Might it not be an idea to buy one vessel, off the shelf so to speak, of a type that is currently in service, for something about 50-100 Million dollars, and find out how much it can do in terms of operating in the North?
> 
> ...



In that context, it makes sense. If you are acquiring one vessel in order to determine it's suitability or to help design a new class, this would be the smart thing to do. Spending untold years and billions developing the one and only patrol vessel is just plain stupid.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (3 Dec 2006)

Boater said:
			
		

> This may sound really naive but how much use are the Kingston's to the Navy anyway? They can't top 15 knots and are armed with a 60 yr old gun that is more likely to just annoy whoever you are shooting at. Wouldn't they be more use to the CCG because of their research potential? Plus they are steel hulled so they are more likely to be a minesweeper for only one mine.



I am sure the many naval and ex naval reservists here can more then adequately answer your view.


----------

