# Best thing Paul Martin can do is?



## Spr.Earl (16 Nov 2003)

Reinstate the Air Borne Regiment,(WE NEED PARA‘S)as this will raise moral and signal a new begining if he‘s willing to keep his integrity and support the Armed Force‘s.
This is just for a start.


----------



## onecat (16 Nov 2003)

How about if just returns the all money he took from the CF during the 90‘s.  And increases the manpower strenght to 90,000.  I want CAR back, but I think there other more important things he can first.  Knowing there will be bigger budgets will increase moral much faster.


----------



## RCD (17 Nov 2003)

If he brings back the airborne. Bring it back at brigade level. 2 x battalion strong with support group. total strength of approx 2200 / 2400


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Nov 2003)

Why do we "need" paras ie a parachute regiment?
What in our current scope of operations require us to make that a priority?

I was slated to go on my jump course but i had to take my name off due to work up training for bosnia. I‘m going to bend over backwards to get on the course when i get home. I like the pride and mystique (sp?) of  paratroopers just as much as the next kid but to say we "need" it? When our helicopters fly like rocks and our new "striker" vehicle seems to be the laughing stock of the armored branch?  We have more important issues to worry about.

I have a few friends who only got half of their jump course because we did not have enough hurcs for them to make all 4 or 5 jumps needed to pass the course. You want to try and support an airborne brigade? No way dude.


----------



## AZA-02 (17 Nov 2003)

Totaly increase the budget for the CF.
i agree with radiohead, it will increase the
moral by a lot for the men and the women of the CF 
and the image the CF has on new recruits and the rest of
Canada.   
(i cant stand hearing jokes on how bad the CF his)


----------



## scm77 (17 Nov 2003)

Money, money, money.  The only NATO country that spends less money/year on military then Canada is Luxembourg.


----------



## northamericanrebel (17 Nov 2003)

any amount of money would help at this point


----------



## combat_medic (17 Nov 2003)

I agree with Ghost. While having a CAR or other Para Bn would be nice, it‘s a luxury at this point. It‘s like a starving family being given a Rolls Royce. It‘s a ‘would be nice‘ rather than a ‘must have‘, and the money would be far better used on the necessities first.

I, for one, would far rather see the money go to improve our basic equipment and training rather than spending billions outfitting some kind of elite infantry regiment. Let‘s walk before we can run! Once we‘ve mastered the basics and have the CF at a good, sustainable level, we can figure out the logistics of getting the high speed, low drag units going.


----------



## RCD (18 Nov 2003)

THIS (CAR) CAN BE DONE AT OUR CURRENT STRENGH.BUT LET‘S PUT THE MONEY IN NEW EQUIPMENT FIRST THEN INCREASE OUR MAN POWER


----------



## Da_man (18 Nov 2003)

we need to buy humvees and F-22s


----------



## holywars33 (18 Nov 2003)

While we are at it, how about an aircraft carrier too.....


----------



## AZA-02 (18 Nov 2003)

we need something that will make us look different, we need a style for our equipment, that when people look at it they‘ll say "hey thats the new Canadian iltis" not 
"ooo look at the American want to be‘s in theire humvees"


----------



## AZA-02 (18 Nov 2003)

An aircraft carrier would‘nt hurt. a small one like the spanish
(i think)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Nov 2003)

We have a hard enough time manning all of our CPFs not to metion Huron has been laid up because of manpower shortages where are we going to get the crew for a CV not to mention the air crew for it???


----------



## onecat (18 Nov 2003)

An aircraft carrier... give me a break, AL-X I know your in hisgh school; but surely you‘ve learned some money management skills there.  Where the CF going to get the moeny for that, when they don‘t have money for the basics.  

Canada doesn‘t need one, and can not afford to man one even if we could if could find the money to buy it. Ask for something you can actually get....


----------



## scm77 (18 Nov 2003)

Aircraft carrier is probably the last thing CF needs.  How about making sure everyone has Cadpat.  Making sure everyone has all the CTS equipment.


----------



## kurokaze (18 Nov 2003)

All you young ‘uns saying we need aircraft carriers need to take a step back for a moment.  We don‘t have the ability to man all of our destroyers currently, much less two aircraft carriers (and yes we would need two).  Plus the expense of MAINTAINING and DEFENDING such a high value asset becomes astronomical 

IMO, in terms of capital expenditures what we really need is strategic airlift, close air support, and heavy (155mm+) SP artillery.

In addition, we need more personnel, basic equipment and training + retention incentives.
It‘s ridiculous that one of my troops still doesn‘t have a uniform after 4 weeks of starting basic.  In addition, incentives to get troops to come out on exercises in the reserve world.


----------



## AZA-02 (18 Nov 2003)

Thats what i ment, we need two (west, east) but cant afford
it. kurokaze is right, we need to spend more on the basics.


----------



## Gunnar (18 Nov 2003)

Battleships.  Lots of battleships.  All for Lake Winnipeg...Defend Regina at all costs.

The best thing Paul Martin can do is call an election, and lose.

Chretien carried on the Trudeau government‘s legacy of spitting on the troops, at least figuratively.  Do you honestly think that Mr. Silent (at least for the past year) has the inclination, or the backbone to act any differently?  I don‘t think so.

More people voted for Conservative parties last election than voted for the Liberals.  In fact, in terms of majority of votes, more votes were cast for the Alliance.  However, in terms of SEATS, which is how our political system is run, the Liberals got a majority.  It shouldn‘t be impossible for a Conservative party be the next government, it just takes some will on the part of the electorate.

You can argue the politics of such a change, but from a strictly pragmatic point of view, you need a party with a different agenda to expose all the graft and corruption of the previous party...things have got to be bad if the politically appointed ethics commissioner is finding faults...imagine what would be found under a government that actively despises the Liberals?


----------



## Kitanna (18 Nov 2003)

I would like to see an Aircraft Carrier in the CF but I agree it isn‘t logical to get them right now. Being in High School, my boyfriend in the PLF just recently got his Cadpats and he was in the Reserves for over a year now. Getting the basics is the most important thing. and the best thing Paul Martin can do is die. ^_^ More funding for the CF! We have a small amount of well trained soldiers, compared to the US having a large amount of un trained soldiers. We should try and get our numbers up too. Raise recruiting!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Nov 2003)

Ok folks wil give you a little lesson on the navy. If we got 2, one for each coast we might need 4 (the UK only have two of their carriers active at any one time, the other is always in refit)....that way 1 could be down for repairs, working up, or on deployment. With even a small carrier like the Brit Invincible or the Spanish Principe De Asturias you would need a minimum of 3 to 4 escorts at any time. One of those escorts ideally would be an air defence destroyer and 2-3 frigates. We only now have 3 Iroquois class destroyers now that Huron is going bye bye. Now on each coast and any given time 1 frigate is usually undergoing a major refit and 1 or more is on a major deployment. With 2 active carriers, 6 to 8 destroyers and frigates get taken out of the pool when they could be deployed on NATOs or part of a US CVBG and whatever they do out west   . With 2 carrier battle groups we would also have to deploy an AOR to make it self sustaining plus have an AOR or each coast for whatever else might come up. So realistically if you want carriers, you would have to add at least 8-10 surface combatants and 4 auxillaries. I am not counting aircraft for the carriers and additional helos for the other ships. Would be great for the navy but sooooo expensive.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Nov 2003)

Army Chick I would hardly call the US military of being untrained.


----------



## kurokaze (18 Nov 2003)

heh, I think we‘ve beaten the aircraft carrier issue to death..


----------



## willy (18 Nov 2003)

If the Canadian Government, under any leader, would spend a little more on the CF, then I think we‘d all be happier.  Manning our 3 brigades properly, actually outfitting them with equipment as per their TO&E, and procuring sufficient spares, maintenance, and training capability to support them properly will be enough of a challenge.  If we manage to get the above tasks done, then the next priority might be to purchase associated kit and training resources so that the reserves can continue to train to effectively support the reg force, and not get left behind, in posession of small amounts of antiquated equipment.   Enough of the armchair generals suggesting that we fall in another airborne regiment, or buy carriers, or any other such pipe dream.  Just had to have my two cents on that, even though others had already made similar points.  

My next point goes off in a different direction though: Army_Chick, if you don‘t like the current government or its policy, then vote for a different party in the next election (assuming that you are old enough, that is, cadet).  I would like to see a lot of changes with regards to defence spending myself.  Nonetheless, I will not go online and type out a tasteless diatribe against the pending prime minister of Canada, and affix my name and "rank" to it.  Such an act would be insubordinate at best, and I think that you need to learn the difference between what is appropriate content and what is not in forums such as these.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (18 Nov 2003)

Well stated, Willy, on all counts.  I wish Mr. Martin well - he is certainly promising the moon to a lot of groups, I sincerely hope he lives up to at least half of his expectations.  He was fiscally responsible and mature as Finance Minister, and if the Army took some terrible cuts, so did others.  I‘m not saying things couldn‘t have been done better, but perhaps with Mr. Martin calling the shots, they will be?  Too many years of Liberal governments have me more than a bit disillusioned, but I‘m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.  As a serving soldier, I have no choice about that, anyway.

As for CADPATS not being issued for a whole year - oh my, the poor baby.  I joined the Militia in 1987 and when I was actually issued the CF greatcoat (standard issue at the time) I was enviously and obscenely questioned as to what I had to do (and to whom did I do it) in order to obtain one.  Shortages are nothing new - I didn‘t even have my own web gear for 6 months.  

Lord, I sound like one of those "back in the good old days" guys.

The majority of Calgary Highlanders, KOCR, 15 Med et al in Calgary are in Mopat still.  If one guy in the PLF had to wait a year for CADPAT, he can consider himself lucky.  

How about the 12 month wait for Canadian Forces Decorations?  It‘s all part of the job, and just like in wartime, you make do with what ya got.

Aircraft carriers, commando regiments and fleets of aircraft carrying paratroopers are nice to dream about, but we would probably need to all agree on what the Army is supposed to be doing for the next five years before we could begin to talk about how to equip it.

Chicken and the egg...


----------



## Da_man (18 Nov 2003)

why would we need a carrier?  it would be totally useless


----------



## Gryphon (18 Nov 2003)

how about giving some money to the reserves so that we actually can train and do exercises on seperate weekends while having equipment of our own, and having it work? now that‘s DREAMING!


----------



## Burke (18 Nov 2003)

I don‘t see the need for Canadian paras.


----------



## RCD (19 Nov 2003)

First Mr Martin needs to put in place is a Defence MInister with some background in military & Foreign Affairs.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Nov 2003)

Recon man i used to think the same thing but then i considered something that i heard. We shouldnt ask the generals what the army needs we should ask the soldiers.  Maybe having someone in the role of MND without any military experience will allow him to make more unbiased opinions. He wont have all these old friends (and favors) from high ranking military people so he won‘t need to dance that dance.


----------



## Slim (19 Nov 2003)

I think everyone would agree that regardless of what the mission of the CF will be, we desperately need helicopters (more, bigger and better ones) I have a cousin who is a rotorhead and he is actually AFRAID to fly a Seaking ( they are just turning 40 for anyone who didn‘t know!)
We could also do with our own airlift capability. I‘m not talking about buying Herks but maybe some of the bigger stuff ( Starlifters, Galaxy or Globemasters)
Regardless of the role that we decide to take on we WILL need that equipment...and for anyone whose been on deployment anywhere, riding around in other countries aircraft is all too common.  :crybaby:


----------



## RCD (19 Nov 2003)

GHost778 Our MND should be a person like a Margaret Thatcher type. To have a strong voice & vision of our forces in Cabinet,& with our military leaders. Unfortunately i don‘t see one in the near future


----------



## Staff (19 Nov 2003)

Didn‘t someone post a comparison of the Canadian and Australian militaries a little while ago? They have a similar sized force with a similar budget. Why shouldn‘t we be able to do what they do. Get the the stuff their military wants/needs in time for a price that won‘t kill us. What a new government should do is, in my opinion, let the military use the budget as they see fit. It cost a huge amount of money just to submit a purchase to the tendering process. If the military wasn‘t required to wallow in the bureaucracy that exists, it would not take the time or money that it does just to buy the basic  equipment that we need. If a regular government agency is task with a large purchase, months, even years can go by before the required equipment arrives(i.e. Clothe the Soldier). Imagine if a Sgt or Bn LogO were given such a task and it took that long. The guy would be ridiculed, sacked, and, as soon as it got out, known as "not the go to guy". Operationally the guy would be buried so far in the rear with the gear, it wouldn‘t even be funny. Our problem is that stuff we need is being selected by people already in the rear. The trial process is almost a joke and COSTS us money. There was a quote in one of the base newspapers where a soldier involved in the trial process said that most guys chose the new soft field cap because it made them look less stupid than the other models. It COST us money to NOT have an amphibious package on the LAVs. Suppliers should be beating on our doors considering amounts of stuff we want/need just to see if we want to try their new shiny thing on the next FTX. I know that as soon as we adopt or even think about starting new safety policies at the school(CFSCE), there are people in Kingston with prototype safety harnesses and high angle rescue equipment in the office within a couple of days. We try their stuff. Some of it is good. But, then we say "Talk to Ottawa". Months later, someone in Ottawa decides to buy a variant, not tested, because it‘s cheaper, or something. If a new government wants to do something for the military, they ought to get us out of the bureaucracy. It will save them money and us time.


----------



## NMPeters (19 Nov 2003)

People, you are all talking as if this is a new government. It‘s not a new government. It‘s a new personality at the helm. The current PM and the incoming PM may have professional differences, but Canada is still being led by the Liberal Party. Don‘t think that there are going to be any radical changes. Mr. Martin is still going to run this country with the same basic principles and tenets that structure the Liberal Party.


----------



## kurokaze (19 Nov 2003)

> Didn‘t someone post a comparison of the Canadian and Australian militaries a little while ago?


That was me.  Here‘s a link to the thread.

 http://army.ca/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/19/40#000000


----------



## RCD (20 Nov 2003)

The Australians defence council came up with there vision. A 10 year plan, and they intend to spend about 46 billions dollars on their forces.


----------



## Enzo (20 Nov 2003)

I‘ve read the thread, thought about it, here‘s my Christmas wish list in no particular order:

1. Return NDHQ to Winnipeg. I‘d rather keep some distance from Ottawa, no need to invite command staff to beauracratical functions, etc... Closer ties? Yeah, that‘s worked out really well for us eh.

2. Trust. Where is the trust? When I was in, I was only a Pvt. So I wasn‘t involved in many "big decisions." I was however, entrusted with many responsibilites. I trusted my Warrant. I honestly feel that he was a hard man, who knew when to push, and when to slacken the leash. In the field, with live ammo and given an objective, we acted. I trusted those around me, and followed training and my own instincts. Worked out well enough. So where is that trust from the government? The ammo acquired for us in the field was "reserved" so that we could use in appropriately in training. i.e. Many rounds went down range. More than allotment for the exercise according to the book. Why is that? Can you place a cost on training in that manner? Apparently so. As I understand it, when a large exercise is planned within the CF itself, it‘s all in house, so decisions regarding the EX are made taking the current allocation of funds from the budget into account. Is this an accurate assumption? If so, then I‘m also assuming that Ottawa trusts the CF to train it‘s staff as it sees fit, within the confines of the QR&O, etc... So, if this is also the case, then shouldn‘t equipment allocation also fall into the confines of the CF? I‘d like to see some trust.

As I understand things, given full control of procurement, the fear is that the CF will behave as kids in a candy store. Every year spending everything on the latest desires and then holding out the hand for more. Even as Chretien spoke about the Military this past month, about how, "they always want more." Are the CF akin to children?

Trust them to do the job, but allow them the opportunity to provide for themselves with the kit to do that job. Effectively.

3. Emergency priority for the immediate replacement to the Sea King, period. I am a pilot, and I‘ve heard all of the arguments. The age of the airframe has nothing to do with it. Honestly, if allowed the opportunity, I‘d happily fly a Spitfire tomorrow. But would I fly one operationally? No. That is the difference. Not age, but air time. You can replace engines and avionics as much as you want, but when the airframe hit‘s it‘s limit, then you‘re waiting for a catastrophic structural failure. These aircraft have been flown and used for many years, there is no question, replacement is at hand. Period. (For the record, I‘m not certain, but I‘d bet that the Sea King flown by the President isn‘t a 1960‘s product that was used operationally by the military for 30-35 years before it was allocated to the Pres. Even if it was, what‘s the bet it has a maintenance budget and schedue we‘d love to match. Comparision by the gov doesn‘t work for me.)

4. Changes to the recruiting structure. I don‘t have the answers to this one. You can try for the best, but it‘s a role of the dice. I‘d like to see more emphasis on the personal aspect of the recruit. Look into the kids eyes, test him/her, see what they‘re made of, so to speak. Apply pressure to those while they‘re still in the applicational phase. Give them a true idea of what military life is like. Especially if they‘re desiring combat arms. I understand that‘s what happens when they arrive at BMQ or Battle School, but would it hurt to weed out before then? And instead of denying entry, offer trades suited to the aptitude of the applicant. Something along those lines. I‘m probably way off here, but I can‘t get past the guys in my platoon who arrived from CFRC; one with a fractured foot which they not only knew about, but they instructed him to go to the MIR, get a recourse and then await another trade at Borden (faster than healing before entry and awaiting a slot for the trade he was interested in) and the other with dreams of SAR Tech (which they said he could achieve from the infantry) who was 50 pounds overweight and mentally soft (coddled and sheltered his entire life, poor kid didn‘t have a chance). He didn‘t have the character or self-discipline to make and stay with the changes required of himself to achieve those goals and he floundered holding onto his unrealistic expectations of the infantry until he released himself in disappointment. Those two stick out, in my platoon alone another half-dozen walked away for various reasons, most of which fell under the, "we had no idea it was going to be like this" category. Most were surprised we were being trained to kill. When you only have 32 guys to begin with, losing those guys for those reasons was a waste. Take into account the injuries and you begin to understand the 70% overall attrition rate. There must be a better way? Any ideas? I‘m stumped, and you probably wouldn‘t want my thoughts anyway, I‘m sure I‘m highlighting the "narrowness" of my thoughts here as it is eh

5. Political accountability for the decisions to send soldiers to theatres of operation. i.e. Somali anyone?

That‘s about it, I‘m sure it‘s more than enough eh

Correct me for any of my assumptions, it‘s only my opinion. Hope I haven‘t offended anyone here.


----------



## Marauder (21 Nov 2003)

Nothing will happen under Martin; admit it to yourselves, we‘re deep in the death spiral and there isn‘t much anyone outside NDHQ can do about it except get off their collective ***  and vote in a new party. Even then, truth be told, nothing will be radically changed, because Joe & Jill Canadian don‘t give a $hit about defence. All they know is the lie that has been told enough to become truth, namely that increased defence spending will threaten their "free" health care and public education. (As a university student, I appreciate the irony of all the education you need being "free for the taking" in this country).
Even if a ******* Alliance/PC monster child by some miracle became the ruling party, the second they hand more cash to the CF, the sheeple will rise up in a panic. It will be conditioned response rather than true thinking opposition by then, but will that matter?
Beyond that, even if the CF were given more cash, it would just dissapear into the gaping maw of NDHQ. Maybe *MAYBE*, a quarter of any new money ever filters down to turn into things a PTE or CPL would ever use or employ. If any government ever had the balls and the sense to cleave the military and civilian sides of NDHQ, there might be some faint hope, but even it were to ever happen, I doubt anything would change, the ruling mil strata is to accustomed to playing the petty games and using the comforts of pure Ottawa civil servants.
Face it, the CF has terminal brain cancer. Stick the fork in, it‘s DONE.


----------

