# Suggestion‘s to improve the C.F



## Spr.Earl (14 Jul 2003)

Being a Reservist since April 1976 I have seen 
so many change‘s,up‘s and down‘s,loss of equipment
(Chinook‘s big mistake!!) etc.

 My first 5yrs. were all spent with 3Fd Sqn which then became 1 C.E.R. on class B callout‘s.
After that was time availible due to work.

 I have 5yrs left in service of my adopted country
and I‘m very dismayed were our Force‘s are going.

My Suggestion‘s:


 #1-Bring back the C.A.F. with all supporting trade‘s.

 #2-Intergrate the Reserve Training with Reg Force(Will weed out the weak)were by we will have a better Reserve Force to augment the Reg.‘s which 
is becoming a reality more so every day!!


----------



## gate_guard (15 Jul 2003)

First of all, the CF has to be defined with regards to Canadian foreign policy. If we‘re going to be a peacekeeping and sometime police action military, our needs would be different from those demanded by taking on a pro-active role (think U.S.). The problem here is that it‘s hard to do this with a government that seems to test the winds of international political opinion before it makes a decision. As it stands now, we have been acting as a peacekeeping/making military. If this is Canada‘s direction in foreign policy then the standard "fixes" apply such as: more funding AND effective use of it, higher standards for recruiting and training, strategic airlift, and a highly motivated mobile force (think CAR) that would be on 48 hrs notice to move.


----------



## onecat (15 Jul 2003)

My top five would be this

1) invest more money in training, this includes everything from basic to trades and hire outside trainers where were are short.  The faster people learn their trade that faster they actually doing something.  

2) improve base living standards and lower rent.  Being the CF doesn‘t mean you should pay market rent.  There should be some benifits to being in the CF

3)Increase recruiting, the CF should at least 80,000 regs given the number of mission it is on.  The increased number will also make it easier to retent people as they will go few overseas missions and that‘s easier on family life.

The above two would help with retention. I think the recruiting standards are fine.  Remember this is the standard to get into basic.  You shouldn‘t be have be a superman or into sports or be 18 to get in.  Once in basic they push you hard to get higher standards.

4) Heavy lift, both fixed wing as in C-17 or Russian.  The CF also needs heavy or medium lift helos.  Not sure what one‘s I would put the list, but we should look at.  From what I‘ve read the US doesn‘t put huge flight hours on their‘s so maybe buying used from them would be good.

5) rapid action force like CAR.  But it doesn‘t have to be airboure.  That would make it easier to get it funded as we stuck with Liberal gov‘t for near future.


----------



## gate_guard (15 Jul 2003)

Radiohead,
I guess I‘m tired of seeing 300 pound donut disposal units walking around in cadpat. Why do they make combats that big anyways? And save the PC answer. Anyone can train to pass the physical requirements of BT. It‘s the upkeep that is necessary and indicative of personal discipline. As we have seen from the Americans in Iraq, anyone can end up fighting, not just the combat arms.


----------



## onecat (16 Jul 2003)

Hey no PC answers from me.  I had thought you were talking about basic only.  I would have to agree with you on the career fitness plan. But on the other hand I don‘t think someone in the support trades should be held to the same fitness standards as someone in the combat arms.  People in support trades are there to different things, and are just that support trades, not combat. Yes they can be involed in actual combat and should be trained for that, and meaning standard fitness level will meet that. But then I don‘t think someone who is 300 pound and not over 6‘5" should weight that much and be in the forces.

Its a problem that the whole of society has to deal with.  Its only going to get worst, as studies show that with in 10-20 years over 50% of kids in school will be over weight.  Not a good thing for society and totally bad for the CF who based their standards fitness level on a standard that by then most people will not be able to meet.  Should the CF change the standards... no.


----------



## Cycophant (16 Jul 2003)

I‘d have to agree that it would be a nice ideal to have everyone so physically fit.

But think about it - we have trouble filling all these support roles with people as it is.  Looking at the situation objectively, sure it would be _nice_ to force anyone who works with the military to be as fit as the Combat Arms, but it‘s not really necessary.  For non-combat support roles, I think the Fitness Requirements that are in place right now are about right.  I personally feel it wouldn‘t hurt to raise them for the Combat Arms, however.

Besides, it‘s a little unreasonable to compare a special outfit to the entire Canadian Forces.  I doubt the British Army or Royal Navy expect all their support staff to be in the same physical shape as the Combat Arms.  Then again, they don‘t have the same issues such as funding and personnel deficiency as we do, either.


----------



## gate_guard (16 Jul 2003)

What fitness requirements are there in place for non-combat arms to allow for the 300 pound blobs of fat? I never said that the combat arms were okay either cause I‘ve seen some tubs walking around with infantry cap brasses on their beret. The CF as a whole needs better fitness levels and your moc shouldn‘t dictate how fit you should be. Think of it from another perspective, those walking triple bypass patients are going to be utilizing CF funds in order to deal with their lack of personal discipline sometime in the future. I also think its an embarassment to have these monstrosities walking around a garrison city in uniform. What image does that represent? I can‘t fathom the logic that says the fitness requirements are fine for non-combat arms, right now they are non existent. This is the military, not fat camp (and I bet fat camps have higher standards than we do). I know how hard it can be to stay in shape, I‘m not a marathon running superman myself. I‘ve seen many non-combat arms soldiers who could run me into the ground. But I do have the personal discipline to keep myself in good physical condition and not take that extra fat pill. Which brings up another point, why is there so much garbage being served in the mess anyways?


----------



## WINDWOLF (16 Jul 2003)

Let me tell you,my friend,about "fat" people.

Had a CSM in the 2nd who was ,shall we say,
on the large size.Always had a problem with
his weight.We young guns thought of him as
a tub of lard & had little respect for him.

One sunday we decided to play in the hand to
hand combat pit.About 12 of us were testing
each other in a game to see who could stay
in the longest.Open hand attacks & no full
speed punches,down on both knees & you were
out.
I took my guy down & turned to face the 
next in line & lo & behold there is the CSM.
All 5‘9" & 225 lbs of him & he is smiling
at me.I had this deer in the headlight look.
He waves me on,i do my level best to take
him out.I threw everything but the kitchen
sink @ him & all he did was keep on smiling.

The next thing i know,i am learning how to
fly.He tossed me at least 15-20 ft thru the air.
No one could beat him,kicked all 12 of us.
We would have followed him into he!! after that.
The man could not run our distances,but he sure
as he!! could kick a$$.Never judge a book
by it,s cover.Just a suggestion.


----------



## gate_guard (16 Jul 2003)

I think your missing the point, Windwolf. I know many senior infantry NCOs who don‘t look like much, but put a ruck on them and they‘ll march you into the ground (airborne style) and I‘m sure you know a few too. This in no way excuses ALL fat people in the CF from maintaining personal fitness. There‘s a huge difference between 225 pounds of deceiving yet hard earned muscle and 300 pounds of donut yeast, mainly a heart attack at age 40. Yes, looks can be deceiving, a fat guy can hide a 9mm in his belly button.

All joking aside, I don‘t judge people with weight problems as being lazy or inept at their jobs or less knowledgeable about infantry tactics. But you can‘t tell me that someone with an extra 100 pounds around the waist isn‘t a danger to his fellow troops in combat or to his own personal health. There‘s no excuse for obesity in the military. I‘m tired of the CF molding to fit the "needs" of its members, it should be the other way around.


----------



## WINDWOLF (16 Jul 2003)

Point taken Gate_guard,but let me think on your
points and i will get back to you on this.

Regards.


----------



## klumanth (16 Jul 2003)

I agree that the current standards for fitness are far too low.  Even if you are in a support trade you may still be deployed overseas to hotter climates or high elevations(like Kabul).  You have to be in good shape to be able to adapt to the temperature and still do your job effectively.  If you‘re overweight and out of shape you will probably suffer heat exhaustion and become a casualty.  As well, as a member of the CF you have to be prepared for any emergency.  Whether a Sig Op or a Clerk or a Mechanic you are a soldier first and you have to be ready for that possibility, however unlikely, that you may have to fight.  Otherwise, why even bother to learn how to fire the C7?


----------



## nULL (16 Jul 2003)

Everyone seems to be coming down on fat people...so here‘s a question for you...what about thinner people? Do they fare well?


----------



## WINDWOLF (16 Jul 2003)

We faired quite well thank-you,says the 
one time"in his youth" skinny, now turning
into a comfortable fit jean wearing ex-grunt.
( 118 to 168 tub of crap)


----------



## McInnes (16 Jul 2003)

Underweight people, or really skinny people, have a greater skin surface as compared to actual "content". Thus, heat exhaustion is a huge factor for them. Also, you dont have to run forever. Light fit guys may be able to run forever, but after a stiff breeze they may be gone. I think that all memebers of the CF should have increased physical standards, and the proper support there to make up programs. But you cant compare special units of Britain or the US to our regular force. It doesnt work that way. Sure the US navy seals have to do this and taht, and so should our support trades! lol, kk, slight exageration...alrite im done now.


----------



## nULL (16 Jul 2003)

Windwolf....you have MADE MY DAY.


----------



## WINDWOLF (17 Jul 2003)

You quite welcome Null.
I always try to make someones day just a little
surreal.
Now my question to you is,How does my self-image
problem make your day?

And does anyone know how to get my gremlins
back? They have runned away.


----------



## nULL (17 Jul 2003)

...because you claimed to be thin in your youth, yet you succeeded in the infantry. For some reason, I thought wiry guys (such as myself) would not fare well in the trade (perhaps lacking those few extra rolls of buttery goodness for quick energy or what not).


----------



## rolandstrong (17 Jul 2003)

Genetically some people are larger than others. Recent studies have shown that over fat people are not so due to genetics however. So this is an environmental factor, and obviously a discipline factor. After working 10 years in the fitness business as a personal trainer and instructor, I can assure you that consistent exercise coupled with good eating habits (mainly not eating huge all you can eat size portions) will not leave you as some of the posts above imply. You don‘t need to be an athlete...just disciplined. I cant understand why some of the overly huge forces people cant get enough pride together to stay disciplined and look like a soldier. Some of the 20 somethings around the reserve units here are tragically huge....no doubt about it. I dont understand that.


----------



## Spr.Earl (18 Jul 2003)

Many of you out there won‘t remeber the B.M.I. indicator test for those who looked over weight.

What it was,the M.O. pinched an inch with a pair of caliper‘s just above the waist and if you were over you went on remedial P.T. and diet and had to improve your physical shape and if it did‘nt work you were released as medicly unfit for service.

But it proved a flop just as cranial measurment in the old day‘s for inteligiance or racial purity,as Windwolf stated about his old C.S.M. he looked like a barrel but!!!
(Windwolf would his name be Cook?)

 Yes,the physical training must go back to what it was for male‘s,as for female‘s they have to have their own standerd but not at the exspence of over all training.

 In the C.F.,if I remember right, there is a reg. stating you are responsible to keep your self in shape and if not you will get remedial P.T. and diet and I have seen it done.


----------



## WINDWOLF (18 Jul 2003)

No it was not Cook.
Will have to check my Ric a dam doo to find
out how to spell his name ( think it was
MacKinnis?)
I remember the B.M.I. Had to do that stupid
test yearly.A total waste of good training time.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (18 Jul 2003)

> Why can‘t we live up to this ideal? Any good reason not to? What happens when the company clerk has to hump 50km through the hills with her company?


As an RMS Clerk myself, it always occurred to me that most of the people in my trade, at least in the reserves, have consistently gotten medical chits to avoid that kind of duty?  At any rate, it sometimes seems I‘m in a minority of clerks in my corner of the world that I‘ve actually seen in the field.

In the reserve world, there are two factors at play - civilian jobs that don‘t provide much time for exercise (clerks in the reserves tend to gravitate towards administrative jobs civvie-side, or if not then are in Class B positions and don‘t do regular PT as they ought to - volleyball on Friday morning once a week doesn‘t count).  The other is retention; again, the lack of martial spirit among the population at large tends to have clerks (if I may be so bold as to speak for them in general) not appreciating the need for them to qualify on the weapons, keep fit, etc.

Not to sound like the pot calling the kettle black; I was in much better shape when I was a bike courier than I am now working in a hospital.  But I do enjoy going to the field and doing what is asked of me.  So far, that has included mostly driver-signaller tasks, though I did my share of walking (short) patrols on the last combined ex we did with the CP Police.

I suspect this discussion applies more to the Regulars than the reserves anyway, so I won‘t hijack the thread any further - I just want to point out that not all the people in the support trades are unaware of the problems.  There really hasn‘t been any impetus for many of them to do anything about it, which I agree is problematic - until one is asked to provide a solution, which is rather elusive.

Sometimes one almost wishes one of those airliners on 9/11 had crashed north of the American border.

I‘ll also add this; I‘m 5‘6" - my trade means I likely won‘t be employed in a platoon weapons det near you anytime soon.  Ask me to carry my ruck, webbing, helmet, flak vest, rifle PLUS a Carl G and two boxes of C6 ammo and I‘ll do my best, but I probably won‘t make it to the top of that mountain.

If the CO wants a letter done up asking for funding in the next ten minutes, though, I type 85 words per minute and have a working knowledge of the English language sufficient to preclude me from using a spell checker.  Is this a valuable skill I bring to my company/battalion?  Yes.  Should it be enough to get me a pass on carrying the Gustav?


----------



## PilotGal (18 Jul 2003)

I don‘t think weight OR height for that matter determine anything. It‘s the amount of determination one has that will play the key role in whether one succeeds in the military. (There are no specific weight, height, or age requirements, are there?)   

And going back to the main question... improving the Canadian Forces - 

1. More funding for the Canadian Forces!
2. More recruits! Honestly, look at the size of our country and look at the number of recruits we have in the military. Give more importance to qualifications rather than citizenship status. Background/security checks are easy to conduct. Get more determined people, they usually do better in the military.
3. Better, more advanced equipment - I don‘t think we have a wide variety of arms or planes or artillery! We might have good logistics, but we‘re not even close to being as good as the US forces with regards to equipment. 
4. More fighter jets. Maybe get more CF-18s.     

Maybe I‘m wayyyyyy out of line here, but well, that‘s my $0.02.     

D.


----------



## gate_guard (18 Jul 2003)

PilotGal,
I think I understand your underlying point, which is fitness only takes you so far but determination takes you to the top. I agree, to a point. But if someone is just not physically prepared to a certain extent, no amount of determination will carry them. The military, and the combat arms in particular, demands consistency; the ability to perform at a peak level whenever called upon. For a guy or girl that can‘t run a few kilometers without stopping, they aren‘t going to be able to perform day in and day out at a consistent level. A certain level of physical fitness should be maintained no matter what your trade and no matter how determined you are. You cannot measure determination. You can measure fitness.


----------



## PilotGal (18 Jul 2003)

Yes, very true. But my point is, you should measure fitness, not weight or height.         By determination I meant both emotional and physical determination.  I‘m sure there are people in the army who are more than like 180 lbs and/or shorter than 5‘10". Of course, fitness means everything, and that‘s what I was referring to. Someone who is not of the "ideal" height or weight can succeed by determination to be fit.      

Of course, you‘ll have to be able to run for a few KM without stopping if you‘re even thinking of APPLYING. That‘s for sure. I know that I‘m relatively "short" compared to the other applicants, but I work on being fit, and I *know* that I can do it. And that‘s the main thing.      
And that also brings me to the argument that people should NOT be judged based on their height or weight, but rather their fitness and qualifications, which is apparently not what the army is doing in *some* (not all) cases. Anyone who passes the basic medical checks and background checks (including non-citizens and non-landed immigrants, people like me), should be given a shot to prove themselves worthy of being in the army (by showing that they are fit and consistent).

D.


----------



## nULL (18 Jul 2003)

1. More funding for the Canadian Forces!


Not likely to happen, there just isn‘t enough money, and there are far, FAR more important things to spend money on, like social programs for  ALL Canadians. Would you rather have a multi-billion dollar wing of Su37 fighter planes that you‘ll most likely never even go NEAR, or a functioning social health care system that does not discriminate towards those of lesser social status?  


Back to physical requirements, I still think that the army should take what it gets, and make an effort to force recruits to conform to a set standard. Wouldn‘t it make more sense to say "in order to go on tour, you must be able to do XYZ?" I mean, why be picky? People join the army for different reasons, but I bet quite a few do it to become more physically active; I‘m looking forward to being in much better shape once "they" freakin‘ call be back.


2. More recruits! Honestly, look at the size of our country and look at the number of recruits we have in the military. Give more importance to qualifications rather than citizenship status. Background/security checks are easy to conduct. Get more determined people, they usually do better in the military.


I think nationality is a big deal because the CF does not want people who may/may not have decided to live in a country just to exploit its social benefits, or because their own country is "worse".  Becoming a citizen of a country means that you have proven yourself willing to share the values and ideals of the country; which is the reason the CF exists in the first place. 


3. Better, more advanced equipment - I don‘t think we have a wide variety of arms or planes or artillery! We might have good logistics, but we‘re not even close to being as good as the US forces with regards to equipment.


Again, back to the money. The US forces are as good as they are because they have alot more tax payers, and their government leaves many services to the private sector. As such, there are currently 45 million people in the United States without adequete health coverage; by 2020, that number is expected to reach 80 million. 

(In 2001, there were only 31 million Canadians)



4. More fighter jets. Maybe get more CF-18s.


What‘s the point? The number we have now (around 80 if I‘m not mistaken) has proven to be all that is required by the CF. When are we next going to contribute any more than a dozen anyway to some far-off war? A strategic airlift capability on the other hand, would be much more practical.


----------



## PilotGal (18 Jul 2003)

*I think nationality is a big deal because the CF does not want people who may/may not have decided to live in a country just to exploit its social benefits, or because their own country is "worse". Becoming a citizen of a country means that you have proven yourself willing to share the values and ideals of the country; which is the reason the CF exists in the first place.*

Ummmm, actually, I‘ve never even thought about benefitting from the social programs in Canada, not even medical. I‘m not here to exploit anyone. I pay, and for 2 years now, have paid for my insurance and all medical expenses, etc. I‘ve also paid taxes, and benefited your country and its various businesses. 

What I‘m trying to say is that if someone has no one in the country and has come as a tourist, that‘s an exaggeration and the application should be rejected. But someone who has lived in Canada for 4 years, paid taxes, got his/her post-secondary education in Canada, volunteered, and moreover has close relatives who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents in the process of getting Citizenship, as well as himself/herself is in the process of applying for immigration and is VERY likely to get it, should be given the *chance* to join the forces, on the condition that he/she has already applied for immigration. I‘m talking about giving a *chance* instead of throwing someone‘s application away or not even sending an application. 

And of course, MOST people come to a country because they want to improve their situation, and not particularly because they want to "enrich" Canada‘s culture. In my case, it‘s because I have relatives here, including my grandmother, aunt, and cousin, and my sister has already applied for immigration and her papers are being processed. It‘s also because I have lived in Canada for 2 years, and I love the culture and want to be a part of it. It‘s not rocket science. It‘s just plain, simple reasons and objectives. Would the immigration department reject someone who has all her family in Canada? I don‘t think so - otherwise, all the other applications would be rejected if an application like mine is rejected. So technically, what is the point in not allowing someone like me to apply, and causing me to waste like 2 years before being able to join the Reserves and close to 5 years before being able to join the Regulars? It‘s stuff like this that the Canadian Forces need to improve. Policies that are unfair to those who really want to be part of this country and to serve in its Armed Forces. Remember, when I apply, I would have 4 years of experience in Canadian life and lifestyle, it‘s not like I‘m coming as a tourist and applying for the CF. So there are no logical underpinnings for not allowing people who still don‘t have their immigration papers processed but are in Canada, have excellent references and qualifications, and a post-secondary degree from a recognized Canadian university, to *try* to join the CF... Of course, I know that is the *law* but well, someone asked how to *improve* the CF, and that is one of my suggestions - just ignoring someone‘s application at face value just because either the "Canadian Citizen" or "Landed Immigrant" checkboxes aren‘t checked, is just ignorant, illogical, and unfair. In my case, you can fairly assess my chances of becoming a landed immigrant - almost 100% once I finish my degree, and I‘m sure the CF have the brains to assess that situation, if only they would look at it. 

That‘s my main suggestion to improve the CF. Of course, it might not appeal to you because it‘s a very minor and specific suggestion/improvement, whereas you were looking for more general ones, but well, you gotta start somewhere. In most cases (even ALL cases, I would say), non-citizens joining the army is NOT an indicator that they are doing it to influence/hasten their immigration/citizenship application processes. Getting into the army is a career. For someone like me, I have no chance of joining the army back in Lebanon - they don‘t allow women into the army except for office jobs, which is NOT what I want to do. It is for reasons like those that people come to Canada - for opportunities for development and future. 

Anyhow, I consider myself        because Canada has given me something no rejection of immigration or citizenship status can take away. Immigration is an issue of mutual trust, and if they are not willing to trust me, there is nothing much I can do except respect their position and move on. It is not up to me to make those changes in policies for the Canadian Forces either. It is up to Canadian citizens, people like you, who have the chance of joining and whose suggestions are listened to. I would‘ve agreed with you that if I were from the States or some other developed country that had an Air Force and allowed women into the army, that would become a security issue, but I‘m a woman, and won‘t be allowed into my country‘s army anyhow, so there is no issue of me going back and taking all that knowledge to my country. Heh, nope, I‘m not whining. I‘m just stating my case and how the CF can try and improve. I really hope someone who *can* change things in the CF is reading this.     
How many Canadians would want to lose 7 years of their life, and join the army after they‘re 30 if they can help getting in at 20? Think about it.     
And just because I don‘t have a piece of paper or a passport that signifies that I‘m a Canadian citizen, doesn‘t mean that I am an unreliable person, especially that I have lived in Canada for almost the period that it takes for someone to become a citizen.        And *THAT* is my point.     

D.


----------



## nULL (18 Jul 2003)

Hey hey! If it were up to me (or anyone cared what I thought   ) I‘d let you in! You listed some very specific reasons, but like you said, I was going for something considerably more general. I just don‘t think that in a country such as ours that the beurocracy is terribly efficient; I doubt they look at these things one case at a time. I had some passport issues about 3 years ago, and although the issue was very minor, it was only recently (6 months ago!) resolved.  Had someone taken a look at my case and seen how trivial it was, I wouldn‘t have had a problem. I think the main problem is that if they treated ONE person differently, they‘d have to do the same thing for everyone, which would obviously create problems.

Best of luck to you though!

(BTW, what did you think of CSCI? I fell halfway asleep during multidimensional arrays way back in C   )


----------



## PilotGal (18 Jul 2003)

Heh, sorry if that came on too strong. You‘re right, sometimes we can‘t do anything about it. But I really hope that in the long run, the conditions would be changed and more open to people who really want to get in. I don‘t think they‘d lose anything by looking at all applications, I‘m sure there won‘t be a million more applications if they accept applications from non-citizens and non-landed-immigrants. You know what I mean?   

I fell asleep during my COSC classes. I did fairly well on them though (lowest mark was a B), but that was just not interesting for me. I switched out as soon as possible. I don‘t want a career in anything related to computer science, or even an office/admin job in the CF.      I‘m mainly interested in Air Force and alternately Infantry or Artillery.    

D.


----------



## Ruthless4Life (19 Jul 2003)

> And yes, the CF and its recruits need a specific attitude change too - is the Canadian Army the best army in the world? Well, is it? If it‘s not, and you‘re saying it is, then it‘s a step back, not a step forward. And for that matter, have you served in the US Army to know what they have and what they don‘t?


There is no best army, and no one said we are the best. Almost all western armies are equally well trained. And about the US Army, the US population is 10X ours.

We are not THE best, but we are one OF the best I can assure you that.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Jul 2003)

Luxembourg could have the "best" army but you also have to take into consideration the size. 
One US aircraft carrier has more sailor then we have combat soldiers.
Quantity has a quality of it‘s own (Stalin).  
Our army is pretty good but we are missing a lot of things that other countries have. Ability to move our troops around. Training using combat aircraft. Attack helicopters. Main battle tanks.

As negitive as it sounds, in a conventional war we could only fight an enemy up to brigade size, nothing more. (Taking into consideration that 3:1 doctrine). In 7 years i‘ve never seen or heard of an excersise with infantry or tankers working with CF18s. (Could be im sheltered though)
If Canada faced off against iraq who do you think would win?


----------



## PilotGal (19 Jul 2003)

*If Canada faced off against iraq who do you think would win?*

It‘s hard to say... There really is no simple answer to that. I for one don‘t think USA "won" the war on Iraq. Not YET anyway. But that‘s another issue. I think Iraqis have good guerilla tactics, but not good equipment. Question remains, is that particular combo good enough to force us to back off? And are our forces coordinated enough on air, field, and so on, to be able to achieve victory or force them to surrender/withdraw? 

I don‘t claim to know how the Canadian Forces function, and how good their logistics are, and there are different views on this amongst military personnel too, but I don‘t think the Canadian Forces are one of those forces that *can* do a sweep-takeover of any city without having massive loss in lives. Think about the number of people our forces would‘ve lost if *we* were the ones who had declared war on Iraq... 149 dead only? I don‘t know. Hard to tell. There really is no fixed "fact" on that one, I think. It depends on your enemy and their tactics. Just like the Viet Nam war. It‘s not always about the good equipment or the good training. If you‘re in the wrong spot at the wrong time, even if you have a machine gun, you‘re gonna go - busted. The question now is - do you have good logistics? Because if you have neither the logistics nor the equipment and technology, then you‘re kaput. But if you have excellent logistics and not very good equipment, then you have a chance there. Do the CF have good logistics? Someone said our logistics were brutal. Brutally good or brutally bad? And, if it was brutally bad, do we have the good guns, fighter jets, etc. to keep the edge on our enemies? 

D.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Jul 2003)

If it just us vs them we would get out a$$s handed to us   
Thats just a matter of physics and quantity though.

"I think Iraqis have good guerilla tactics, but not good equipment."
I‘m not too sure about that. They took out a few M1a1 main battle tanks and some appaches. I heard syria or someone was giving them advanced russian equipment.

It‘s sad how many americans keep dying over in iraq.  I can‘t stand hearing about iraq people starting crap with the us, especially after what the US did for them.  Im sure you can argue that the US did some bad things but in the end they still had their psycho of a leader kicked out and they are safer for it.


----------



## Spr.Earl (20 Jul 2003)

Arty I‘m just as bad getting side tract but have ended my post‘s let‘s get back on track.


So folk‘s let‘s get back on track with the subject.

Let‘s start with should reserve course‘s be intergrated with reg force.i.e. x reservist‘s slotted in reg.course‘s?
What would the benifit‘s and shortfall‘s be?

The Brit reserve‘s all go on Reg force course‘s and their Reserve‘s out do our‘s any day!

I‘m one of the lucky few who has had reg force
course‘s and have the qualification‘s for
Dump driver,F.E.L.,machine gunner‘s,Comm‘s course,just to name three.


----------



## deathwing5 (20 Jul 2003)

that reminds me, You can get a military license to drive vehicles even if you dont have your civillian drivers license right?

The tracked artillery, I think it‘s called the 109 155 mm I really love the way it looks.


----------



## Spr.Earl (20 Jul 2003)

Wrong!!

That went out yonk‘s ago.

You must have a civie licence first before you get your 404‘s.

When I joined in 76 no sweat your 404‘s covered you then in about 78,79 they made it manditory you have a civie licence before you could take a vehicle drver‘s course.


Argon you just side tracked!!!!

Let‘s back on track (no pun intended)


----------



## deathwing5 (20 Jul 2003)

lol alrite alrite no sweat.


----------



## Spr.Earl (20 Jul 2003)

LOL!!
Have any good suggestion‘s?


----------



## deathwing5 (20 Jul 2003)

Nope i have no opinion on that. I just want to get in soon. I got my interview in 3 days, and everydays‘ been feelin like a week. Then maybe i‘l have an opinion on it.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (20 Jul 2003)

Spr - things may have changed again since 79, at least in the reserves. I  did my Dvr Wh in 1995 or so, and we had at least one candidate who had never driven a car in his life.


----------



## muskrat89 (20 Jul 2003)

Sapper Earl - not to stay off track, but I remember between 83 and 96 - Driver Wheeled courses being run at the Arty School, where guys didn‘t have their civvie licenses. You are probably correct about the policy change, but I have to believe that even in the 80s and 90s, Units were being selective about enforcing it....

Pilot Gal you arrogance and lack of deference serves only to build your pedestal even higher - someday you will be toppled off. There are plenty of folks on this board that I don‘t always agree with, but I always respect their opinions because they have earned the right, and gained the experience required to form them. I have seen 100s like you - in all walks of my life - theorists - with no practical experience, but an answer for everything. All ended up with shattered perceptions. Those with enough huevos to admit it were always 100% in agreement - "I wish I would have listened". Your opinions mean nothing to me, frankly - but your attitude is as ignorant as I‘ve seen on this board. Your starry-eyed idealism won‘t last long, in the real world. Good luck, because it appears you won‘t have recruited many friends to lean on.  Cheers


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Jul 2003)

"Something either happened or didn‘t, especially when it comes to clearly documented things like WWII."

History is writen by the victors (I know, over used)
Pick up a german history book about ww1 and 2 sometime and give it a read through. You‘ll be amazed at how "clearly documented" things can differ.


Theres 2 soldiers in my company who have 404‘s and only have a G1 licence and one or two (i think one) who has 404‘s with no civilian licence.


----------



## Spr.Earl (20 Jul 2003)

OI,NOW I IS SHOUTING,LET‘S GET BACK ON TOPIC!!!

 Don‘t pee off a Hengineer!!
I‘ll blow all of ya away :>))) LOL

Come on ladies and gent‘s I started this thread hoping for some good ideas and constructive discussion so we may come out with some constructive ideas to improve both the reserve‘s and Reg.‘s!!!

No more slagging,O.K.

Adult Time!!


----------



## PilotGal (20 Jul 2003)

Spr. Earl,

Agreed.    We went wayyyyyyyyyyyy off-topic, so let‘s just go back to the main topic.   

D.


----------



## deathwing5 (20 Jul 2003)

We propably wont go back on topic, and when we do i‘ll have nothing to say.  I dont know how to improve the C.F.  Perhaps some monkey butlers for the officers.


----------



## nULL (20 Jul 2003)

Here‘s a question: Does anyone who actually makes defence policy even care what any of you grunts think needs to be changed?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (20 Jul 2003)

nULL, that‘s another question that can only be answered by life experience.

When I was a bike courier, I was as vocal as anyone about management in our company.

When I was promoted to Operations Manager, as much as I wanted to convince myself I was still "one of the boys", the new priorities in front of me convinced me I couldn‘t.  I also realized that the worker bees very often have no understanding whatsoever of how the queen bees do their business.  It‘s why I don‘t often criticize the government since I have never actually been an MP and really don‘t know what kind of priorities they have.

I may vent some frustration about them on occasion, but I am convinced most of us will never know what THEY have to do in order to keep US equipped and operating.

Anyone who hasn‘t served in a managerial role really has nothing to say on the subject.


----------



## nULL (20 Jul 2003)

Yeah, I thought that‘s how it works. Don‘t get me wrong, I‘m not coming down against the Chretien government. I think that they‘ve done a good job, given what they had. They‘ve managed to not sell out  the country (like those conservatives seem eager to do) and have kept Canada‘s voice distinct from the American one. Were there an election tomorow, I‘d vote Liberal. That said, my question was not directed to come down against the powers-that-be. Personally, I think that workers have no right to question the motives of their superiors. For that matter, I don‘t believe there should be influential opposition parties in parliament either. I was just wondering if in the CF, the input of the soldiers is listened to.


----------



## gate_guard (20 Jul 2003)

nULL,
Why shouldn‘t one question superiors? I‘m not saying widespread insubordination should be the order of the day and obviously if soldiers everywhere constantly questioned orders, the CF would never get anything done. There is a big difference, though, between being ordered to take a position even though you‘ll probably die and being ordered to commit acts of genocide on a civilian population. There is nothing wrong with questioning authority as long as its called for and appropriate. With regards to the government, yes we aren‘t in a position to know the problems and issues that MPs (not meatheads!) face day in and day out. But that is their job, our job as citizens is to voice our opinion when we don‘t like what the gov‘t is doing. The next step from never voicing out against the gov‘t is a fascist state where it is illegal to do so. I‘m proud of my country and part of that comes from the fact that we have the freedom, regardless of political views, to be heard. I have worked as a store manager and I understand how frustrating it can be to get things done when those under you don‘t understand the big picture or just don‘t do the job you need them to. But I think this problem is poor leadership more than it is an issue of insubordination. I would rather have subordinates who asked questions and gave me input than just blindly followed what I said. What would happen to the infantry if every new, inexperienced Lt who was given a platoon had a Warrant and Sergeants who didn‘t say anything when the Lt gave a bogus order? Like I said, there is a time and place for questioning orders.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (21 Jul 2003)

I think gate_guard just stated that much better than I stated my response two posts ago.

The good thing about our system - both in the military and society in general - is our ability to listen to the varying levels of "command" (if you will) and learn from each other.  

It is distressing that some sectors of the government turn a blind ear and eye to anyone who would seek to explain our desires, wants, or needs, and simply bull ahead with their own agendas.  It often appears they only wish to exercise power for its own sake.  I am sure that is true in some cases (and depending on the individual, sometimes in most cases).

But it is the best system we have.  Take the good with the bad?  Like I said, sometimes one thinks it will take a jetliner crashing into the CN Tower or something truly ****ty like that to get some people to better understand what it is we do, but it is also not all as bad as some would paint it either.

Soldiers gripe - it‘s what we do - but once it turns into wallowing in self pity (a fine line sometimes), there is something wrong.

So in the words of one of my former bosses, if we at this end take care of the nickles and dimes, hopefully the dollars at that end will take care of themselves.


----------



## nULL (21 Jul 2003)

*It is distressing that some sectors of the government turn a blind ear and eye to anyone who would seek to explain our desires, wants, or needs, and simply bull ahead with their own agendas. It often appears they only wish to exercise power for its own sake. I am sure that is true in some cases (and depending on the individual, sometimes in most cases).*


OK, well, alot of that is easy to understand and agree to, but I‘m suddenly curious about soldier politics. For instance, on just about every Canadian army forum, _including this one_ someone or other seems to bring up the Canadian Alliance white paper, and then you have a whole lot of people (albeit not all of them soldiers....or so it would appear) start badmouthing the Liberal government, and claiming that they vote conservative. 

So here‘s a question for YOU. Do you, as soldiers, really think that it would be worth having a better equipped military in exchange for Canada‘s social programs? I mean, that IS what the cost would be.

(I say "better equipment" because everybody else says that; truth be told, I have no idea the state of your kit....yet.)

It just seems to me that slandering our leaders seems to be a Canadian tradition, that the military seems all too willing to carry on. **** , most of you openly slam Chretien; were this a US army forum board, and one of you started slandering Bush, you can sure as ****  bet that people would start flaming, even though Bush deserves the harsh critisism _oh_ so much more.

(Ok, raise hands, how many of you want to start grilling me for saying that about Bush, even though he is a foreign leader?) 

*
The next step from never voicing out against the gov‘t is a fascist state where it is illegal to do so. I‘m proud of my country and part of that comes from the fact that we have the freedom, regardless of political views, to be heard.*


gate_guard, how many times have you had someone who was in no way associated with the military, and not "in" per se, start openly bashing the CF? Doesn‘t that aggravate you knowing that that person is going to influence other people, that that person is going to use their uninformed vote to choose the next government who in turn will make your decisions for you? Just look at how many Canadians try to take the fifth amendment, or claim that Canada is a republic. Do you like the thought of those people being on the same level as you? What about the crazy person who lurks in back alleys, biting the heads off rats? Do you think he  should be heard? I don‘t know...I‘ve always believed that political power should be centralized, not spread out or shared. Couldn‘t you define a facist state as one where things get  DONE, where those most fit to wield power end up?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (21 Jul 2003)

But how many fascist states actually worked within the boundaries of human rights, or even for that matter worked efficiently?

Hitler‘s Germany was based on a society marginalizing huge segments of the population - Jews, the retarded, the elderly, gypsies, immigrants, even Catholics came in for their share of mistreatment. 

Mussolini got the trains to run on time, at least, but their foreign policy was also predicated on the idea that they were a new world power, when their weak military really didn‘t allow that to happen.

A Fascist government doesn‘t bring order for the sake of order, it usually brings order so the fascist government itself can remain in power; are there any examples of benevolent fascist states you could share with us?  Would Cuba count?


----------



## nULL (21 Jul 2003)

Good point, but there‘s got to be a first one   

However, there are lots of "democratic" nations which suffer from equally as disturbing problems. For instance, not sure if you‘ll read this in time, but right now on the Passionate Eye is a documentary called "War Photographer"....half of the countries being portrayed are those of democratic nations.

And what of Cuba? We‘ll never know if it could have worked, thanks to massive US sanctions.


----------



## onecat (21 Jul 2003)

"So here‘s a question for YOU. Do you, as soldiers, really think that it would be worth having a better equipped military in exchange for Canada‘s social programs? I mean, that IS what the cost would be."

I really don‘t think it has anything to do with social programs; the reason the CF lacks the manpower and equippment...is totally a Liberal policy.  This my opinion, but their record speaks for it‘s self, the Liberals have been a party that has thought much of military.  Even going back the days of King, you can see their distaste for the military.

Canada already has enough money to do both, the defence department doesn‘t need to be much more... maybe 16 billion a year, and have the other programs it‘s budget supports removed and there would be enough money to would allow for more people and better equippemnt.  And this would still allow a full range of social programs.  But this will never ever happen under a Liberal gov‘t.  

I‘m not in the CF yet but, but when I do get in I don‘t plan on changing my views any time soon.  I think the CF should be more politial, so it can get the budgets and the money it needs to do it‘s job... just like the RCMP or the local police forces... thgey speak out when their budgets are cut too much... they say this won‘t work and the public supports this.  The CF brass should be doing it too.


----------



## McInnes (22 Jul 2003)

the problem is, the public often does not support our military. the most common response to it that ive expericanced is "well we dont even need a military in canada". so if the public does not support the military, the mil. doesnt get the proper amount of funding that it needs. cuz after all, the money that would be spent on national defence, could be benefitting that person all the time, instead of whenever their asses are on the line, which doesnt tend to happen at all in canada, being the peacefull nation that we are. (sigh)


----------



## gate_guard (22 Jul 2003)

And that is one of the sacrifices that we make that often goes unnoticed.


----------



## haplo6 (22 Jul 2003)

I think the CF, reserves specifically should introduce/reintroduce more competition.  Competition at the Troop/Squadron, even unit level will force members and units to wake up and face the reality of their own capabilities.  With the current funding shortages and recruitment problems competition could be a simple answer.  

For example you could take the 3 Armoured Recce Units in Ontario and pit them up against each other at all levels and in all roles.  Various competitions, possibly leading up to one big one would allow everyone to learn, improve and really objectively see how well they are progressing.  The incentive:  Losing unit gets axed!  Harsh yes, but with funding and manpower shortages this is necessary.  Allow the strong to survive and thrive.

Competition Drives our lives, business and industry.  Why not let it drive the military?

Just my 2 cents, take it for what it is.


----------



## Danjanou (22 Jul 2003)

> generals being kept out of the political scene?


You know Michael there are some that would argue that the opposite is true. That some of Generals are too political. Anyone remember the great CDS missing Somalia paper search?


----------



## Spr.Earl (23 Jul 2003)

That‘s the trouble with our system ,once an officer goes above Capt.,it all become‘s political,to get promoted and they get the C.J. syndrome and forget all about what they were taught about looking after thier men and performing in the field.

 And we bitch about the Brit‘s about thier class sociaty!Our Military is one big class structre!
If your a ringer,your in!!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (23 Jul 2003)

I participated in the search for the Somalia radio logs.  I can safely report, without breaching national security, that the Somalia papers were not found in the desk belonging to one Corporal MA Dorosh, Finance Clerk extraordinaire for the Calgary Highlanders.

Seriously, what a boondoggle; as I recall it, every clerk in the brigade stopped work for a morning to search for these papers.

As to the main point - let‘s not confuse service politics with national politics.  While I don‘t disagree that there are always "politics" going on inside the military - **** , even the junior ranks mess has its own political codes - I think what we are discussing are generals being allowed to promote the Army as if it were an interest group in the same manner as, say, a pro-gun group or an anti-abortion group.

There are some grassroots organizations, such as Canadians For Military Preparedness, but serving soldiers don‘t seem to be at the head of these groups.

The question is - should that change?


----------



## Gorgo (24 Jul 2003)

In an attempt to get this conversation back to where the original poster wanted to ask in the first place, I personally believe we -- and I mean as many people as possible -- need to engage in a national debate over what exactly <b>are</b> Canada‘s stragetic and tactical defense needs in the first place, <b>then</b> restructure the CF to match those needs as best as possible.

IMHO, since the Cold War ended, the CF has been suffering from a considerable level of drift when it came to what exactly it should do and why.  This is the first thing we need to correct before we launch into a conversation over exactly WHAT we need to do to make things better.


----------



## nULL (24 Jul 2003)

Peacekeeping. Why not?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (24 Jul 2003)

Fred - what makes you think the average citizen would have a clue what Canada‘s tactical and operational needs are?  For that matter, what makes you believe the average soldier would know, either?  

nuLL - Peacekeeping is dead, according to Granatstein and others.   The last roto to Bosnia, or at least guys from my unit who went, described the tour as "a joke."  They rode around in Iltises and BSed with the locals.  How does that prepare us for the LAV III vs Leopard debate?

Given the ineffectiveness of the United Nations, why train for peace missions that are few in number now and getting even more scarce?

Shouldn‘t we really be beefing up to follow the US on wars of conquest in North Korea, Iran, and central Africa?


----------



## nULL (24 Jul 2003)

Peacekeeping is dead? What‘s going on in the Congo right now? The Solomon Islands? Liberia? Countless other spots around the world? 

Given the questionable motives of the United States when it comes to "going to war" why on earth would you suggest following them anywhere? Half of the US engagements in the last two decades (like the first Gulf War, Nicaragua) how ended up with even more dire humanitarian situations. 

And while Bosnia may no longer need peacekeepers, I heard there were no more rotations that were headed there. Can you clarify this?

EDIT: And wasn‘t the original incursion into Bosnia NATO led? It just seems to me, following the news, that the UN does a ****  of alot of good in the world, and rather than attempt to rip out it‘s foundations, we should make every effort to prop it up. Isn‘t the United States planning on appealing to the UN to get international support in Iraq? And aren‘t they having difficulties because the other countries (like India, Russia) waiting for a UN resolution?


----------



## Danjanou (24 Jul 2003)

I think what Michael meant was that the old traditional version of peacekeeping, the blue beret era where both sides "invited" the UN troops in is changing.

What we are seeing now is more akin to Paeacemaking missions where the forces are being deployed into what are in fact still war zones as opposed to enforcing ceasefire agreements 
(Suez, Cyprus), often without the "consent" of the combatants. 

Most of the exmples you list would fall into this new category. Many of these missions are also being initiated outside of the aspects of the UN, ie by NATO, OAS, or even unilateral missions (France, the US)


----------



## nULL (24 Jul 2003)

Couldn‘t that be viewed as the natural evolution of peacekeeping?


----------



## NormR (24 Jul 2003)

To get back onto the original topic
What does the CF need if it recieved the cash?

1] More recruits, better trained, actually the same training as regs., one standard for all.

2] Better integration of Res. and Reg. forces, a total force concept. I believe each unit should be able to work in any group, brigade configuration and do the job as if it is a regular army unit.

3] More equipment: wheeled transport, heavy-lift aircraft, Roto-wing (both transport and tactical), and sea-lift capabilities.

4] Increase air tactical support, both fixed wing and roto-wing.

5] A specific political direction (longterm policy) as to what the CF will be doing in the next 10 years. 
I.E.: PeaceKeeping and/or PeaceEnforcing

my $0.02 for what its worth...


----------



## Michael Dorosh (24 Jul 2003)

Danjanou has it right - although I never said I agreed with the statement that peacekeeping is dead, just reporting what others are saying.

Why would anyone use Liberia as an example of peacekeeping?


----------



## BradT (24 Jul 2003)

Personally, I think it would be great if Canada would put 3-5 year program to procure new, state of the art equiptment. The money would not be taken from health care and such, but useless spending, and possibly, a cut in Foreign aid.
My 2 cents on what the different branches of Candada  could use.
Navy
-6 New Destroyers, replacing the Iroquos class ones, the Spruance class (  http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/dd-963.htm  ) would work, its high class and way cheaper then a Zumwalt or other.
-REAL Subs, SSN class, maybe L.A (  http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ssn-688.htm  ) Expencive, but probably best in the world. (900 million each) Somthing like a sturgeon may be cheaper, (  http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ssn-637.htm  ) 320 million each
-Somthing like a Tarwana class Carrier, amphibious attack ship (  http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/lha-1.htm  )

Army.
The infantry is fairly well equiped, but what the CF could use is possibly Heavy Tanks, Abrams? (  http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm  )
Appache hellicopters, and Chinooks could help Canada in the air, the Griffin is not enough, and the appache would bring the needed attack hellicopter.

Airforce
C-5 or C-17 (C-5  http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-5.htm  C-17  http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-17.htm  )


----------



## nULL (24 Jul 2003)

I meant, Liberia is an area which could USE peacekeepers....or peacemakers as the situation may dictate.


----------



## Gorgo (25 Jul 2003)

>>Fred - what makes you think the average citizen would have a clue what Canada‘s tactical and operational needs are? For that matter, what makes you believe the average soldier would know, either? 

I concede that point, Michael; I didn‘t consider it when I wrote my first post for this particular topic.  It‘s clearly obvious that something about that has to be done.  How would you propose to change that?  It‘s clearly obvious to me that such a high level of ignorance by the general public (especially the VOTING public) is doing much more harm than good by making the politicos in the Land of Oz think they can do anything they want with the military.

Fred


----------



## Gorgo (25 Jul 2003)

>> Personally, I think it would be great if Canada would put 3-5 year program to procure new, state of the art equiptment. The money would not be taken from health care and such, but useless spending, and possibly, a cut in Foreign aid.

I personally believe a review of national taxation policy would do very good here.

Now, let‘s see...

>>Navy-6 New Destroyers, replacing the Iroquos class ones, the Spruance class

The SPRUANCE is a 1970s design despite it being modular in construction.  We can design our own and I‘ll lay a strong wager that the folks working for the CNS in Ottawa are already making some preliminary plans towards that end.

Funny, now that I think about it:  there was a rumour circulating around back in the late 1980s (when yours truly was serving on SAGUENAY) that the U.S.N. was willing to offer some of the older SPRUANCEs to MARCOM for a proverbal penny.

>> -REAL Subs, SSN class, maybe L.A.  Expencive, but probably best in the world.  Somthing like a sturgeon may be cheaper.  320 million each.

Won‘t happen, not for quite some time to come.  Only reason we‘d might want to consider nuc boats is if there‘s a threat coming from the Arctic Ocean.  With the Russian navy a mere shadow of its former self, the expenditure isn‘t worth it.  Besides, AIP propulsion for diesels is improving by the day.  Once MARCOM finally works the kinks out of the VICTORIAs, we‘ll be alright.

>> -Somthing like a Tarwana class Carrier, amphibious attack ship.

Again, won‘t happen.  First, we don‘t have any dedicated amphibious assault troops like Uncle Sam‘s Misguided Children to put on these ships.  Second, what would the ship‘s air wing be composed of?  AIRCOM‘s already dragging its feet when it comes to finally replacing the CH-124As and by the looks of things, they‘re only going to get enough helos to service the IROQUOISes, the HALIFAXes and the upcoming AOR replacements (whenever THAT happens, of course!).  Atop that, do you seriously believe DND would splurge for something like the AV-8B Harrier?!

If we EVER go back into carrier ops again (and I concede it will be a VERY BIG "if!"), we‘ll probably have something akin to the old French CVs, equipped to fly the CF-188 (saving loads of money when it comes to obtaining parts for said aircraft since 3 Wing and 4 Wing use the very same birds), plus whatever serves as the CP-121 Tracker‘s replacement in the U.S.N. these days).

>> Army-The infantry is fairly well equiped, but what the CF could use is possibly Heavy Tanks, Abrams?

I‘m personally sure all the armoured people would gladly love to get their hands on the M1A2 if the government is willing to splurge for something like that.  However, obtaining something like the Abrams should logically depend on what Canada as a whole would want from the RCD, the Strathconas, 12e RBC and the 8th Hussars.  This relates back to my previous post on this particular topic.  What DO we want the CF to be capable of doing?

In LFC‘s spere of influence, does this mean that we want a standard "heavy" fighting force like what we once expected of 4 CMBG in Germany many moons ago?  Or do we want something light and air-transportable for rapid-response work?

I‘ve heard (though I could be very wrong; if I am, someone PLEASE correct me) that there‘s a version of the LAV-25 now coming out fitted with a 105 mm gun.  With improvements in projectile and armour technology, such a vehicle could possibly do the same job as an M1A2 -- and THREE LAVs weigh as much as only ONE Abrams.

>> Appache hellicopters, and Chinooks could help Canada in the air, the Griffin is not enough, and the appache would bring the needed attack hellicopter.

?!  Didn‘t we retire the Chinhooks sometime back?

As for getting attack helos, there‘s also the RAH-66 Comanches now coming out for the U.S. Army.  I believe this is a dual-purpose helo (if I am wrong, please correct me someone) which could serve in both anti-armour and air recce roles.  And yes, I do agree that a much stronger tac air presence would certainly be welcome beyond what the Griffin can offer.

>> Airforce-C-5 or C-17

I think everyone on this board can agree that after the experience in Afghanistan, a greater tactical airlift capability for the CF should be made a big priority.  Question is, are our major airfields (Trenton especially, but we can also count Cold Lake, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Bagotville and some other places) capable of handling something like a Galaxy and/or a Globemaster?

Atop that, is Lockheed still producing the C-5A?  And given how expensive I‘ve heard the C-17 is, will AIRCOM be willing to splurge for them?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (25 Jul 2003)

Fred - what would I do to change it (ie politicians doing the wrong things with the military)?

That‘s the million dollar question.  Maybe I need to go to flight school and buy myself a box cutter.  Sometimes it seems like that would be the only clarion call anyone would heed.


----------



## Cycophant (25 Jul 2003)

> Army-The infantry is fairly well equiped, but what the CF could use is possibly Heavy Tanks, Abrams?
> 
> Appache hellicopters, and Chinooks could help Canada in the air, the Griffin is not enough, and the appache would bring the needed attack hellicopter.


Another reason the CF should really make sure that its goals require such equipment?  They don‘t come cheap.

M1A2‘s have a unit cost of about $5 million (US).
AH-64 Apaches, with the Longbow Radar cost about $18 million (US) a piece.  With supplies/etc, that goes up to about $26 million (US) a piece.

The CF better hope it gets a heck of a lot more public support, and therefore cash, before it could even hope to purchase anything along those lines.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Jul 2003)

Heres an idea i think would help to improve the quality of training in the CF.
When on excersise the "good guys" not be told exactly when the enemy is suposed to attack.
"Were expecting enemy movement down this road at 2130hrs troop, its VERY LIKELY they will attack so be ready"
This type of stuff leads to troops shutting down eairly on ex‘s. If they know exactly when they will be attacked and they can get ready for it it‘s not doing much to condition them to always be on guard or prepared. Anyone can be alert for 15 minutes and blow away people who are walking around acting on a schedule.
I guess to me it just doesn‘t seem very realistic training.  
Troops get harped on alot for not ‘acting like its real‘. I think that should apply to higher ups too. Taking a jeep to recce out where you will be doing a deliberate attack the next day in broad daylight makes things alittle too easy.


----------



## Gorgo (26 Jul 2003)

>> Fred - what would I do to change it (ie politicians doing the wrong things with the military)?

>> That‘s the million dollar question. Maybe I need to go to flight school and buy myself a box cutter. Sometimes it seems like that would be the only clarion call anyone would heed.

I hope to heaven that it NEVER comes to that.


----------



## zortag (27 Jul 2003)

My .02

First off, I‘m not in the army (working on it.  First it was my medical, now it‘s my background check, but I‘m not going to start about that), I‘m not a professional anything yet.  Yes I‘m still in university, no, I‘d like to think I‘m not an arrogant little puke (although I may very well be).  That said, these are just opinions (some more informed than others) and ideas, usually brought on by animated conversation over the beer table with my anarchist, vegan, union building friend.  He is the exact opposite of me

Secondly I‘d like to reply to Fred a bit.

>>Only reason we‘d might want to consider nuc boats is if there‘s a threat coming from the Arctic Ocean.  With the Russian navy a mere shadow of its former self, the expenditure isn‘t worth it.

The way I see it, it‘s not a matter of whether the threat is present at the moment or not. What really matters here is the question of sovereignty.  Right now, Canada make claim to arctic territories up to the pole as Canadian land, however without an ability to patrol our great white north our claims are mocked but American and Russian exercises that are conducted in Canadian territory without Canadian permission.  It‘s true that there‘s no impending doom coming out of the artic, but it‘s important that we be able to patrol our own backyard.  Now I‘m not saying that we need a dozen LA class subs, for what we need them for, the Victoria‘s do a fine job, but we should have one or two (or as many as it would take) to have a presence in the north, something we‘re not even capable of right now whatever that under-ice presence might be.

That‘s about all I had to say about that.

Without getting into wishful thinking about aircraft carriers and heavy armor.  I think it‘s important to look at the role of future combat, too me it looks like the days of regiments squaring off are largely gone, and we‘re moving towards smaller squad based combat, based on speed and accuracy. Although I might be wrong, wouldn‘t this make things like heavy armor more a liability more that anything else.  Also the heavier we make ourselves the harder it will be to generate the air-lift capacity we need to function.  It would make more sense, in my mind, to move towards lighter armor, IE: the americans and they‘re switch to Stryker vehicles.

A topic that always comes up is the question of funding.  I realize that we can‘t spend as much in real terms as the americans, but it‘s the per capita spending that matters, and reveals a glaring canadian deficiency.  If we look at NATO as a whole, the average defence spending per capita is 589 USD the average in the G-7 is 508 USD.  Canada spends 265$.  

That figure seems greatly out of proportion to me.  It‘s easy to look at the US and say that they have no social safety net and that that‘s how they can afford it, but it‘s alot harder to say that of France, Germany, Italy (actually not so sure about there social net...anyone?) but any of the european countries have both comprehensive safety nets for the populace and a well funded military.  Why not Canada?

This is when we get into the argument over public opinion, and the fact that some, if not most 
Canadians, don‘t even think we need a military.  As much as I‘d like to go and beat some sense into them with a sack full of history and political science books, I don‘t think I could swing that sack as many times as I‘d have to to get people to understand.  I have no idea how to change the Canadian perspective on the military, maybe someone does?

Another interesting fact, if we look at Canada‘s international role is Canada‘s peacekeeper status.  There is no denying it, our days of peacekeeping limelight following the first missions the Pearson government involved us in are over.  In the heyday of peacekeeping we gave the world 10% of it‘s peacekeeping forces, now countries such as Nepal supply almost 4 times the peacekeepers we do (263 CAN vs 914 NEP)  we won‘t even get into Bangladesh‘s 4000+ troops.  Now bear in mind that these are UN figures, not NATO.  I‘m not counting the 1269 troops in Bosnia, nor the others on NATO deployment, but in no way trying to dimish their role.  

There are fundamental flaws in the UN charter which explain the switch from UN to NATO peacekeeping.  The same flaws that allow it to sit idly by during atocities in Rwanda and Somalia.  And in Iraq and Bosnia.  Timor and Liberia.  Palestine and Israel.  And many other regimes that deserve military attention from the international community.  That‘s why the Amercan‘s decided to to move into Iraq.  

Although I‘m sure they had their own self-serving *cough*oil*cough* reasons, the fact remains that something had to be done about Iraq, that should have been done 10 years ago, and done by the UN.  As it stands right now, the UN is in danger of becoming another League of Nations......but I‘m getting off topic here.

Another large problem I see with the CF is personel, be it recruitment, training or retention, the CF has some serious problems with personel.  

The biggest visible problem I can identify, is that the CF has no drawing power to the average public.  If the military is to draw people, it needs to think like a business.  Serving in the army isn‘t like anyother job.  Even the desk jockey could end up in the field one day (god-forbid!)  there has to be a recognition of the special status our armed forces serve.  Substandard housing, and mediocre pay compared to the private sector is not the way to go.  

Personally I think that CF members should get above industry average for their trade.  They should be able to get below market rate housing, both on and off base (already mentioned by someone earlier).

The recruitment process leaves a bit to be desired.  Someone who comes off the street is looking at 4-6 months for enrolment, that just doesn‘t make sense.  Although I understand the argument that if they want it, they‘ll wait, it‘s still demoralizing to be stonewalled by red tape (maybe I‘m just bitter).  It‘s even more ridiculous that you have to wait 6-12 months for your VFS.  That means that I‘m going to be starting my switch from Res. to Reg.  With a year left in school.

There needs to be an incentive for people to join the military, and to stay in the military.  One the ideas I came up with was an income tax break from CF personel, using a graduated scale over the years until you hit a certain plateau.  Maybe even a complete income tax dispensation after X years of service.  The tax base of the military isn‘t enough to affect GC revenue that much.

  They need a complete financial restructuring.  I‘m double majoring, and one of my majors is economics, and some of the things the CF do are just plain stupid.  Look at Fort St.Jean.  They sell the base to a private sector firm that rents it out to a whole bunch of things, then the CF just rents space from the fort so they can do courses? The smart thing to do is to rent the spaces out themselves.


Anywho, I‘ll stop there, what was originally going to be a quick post, turned into a marathon, but who knows, maybe I raised a good point or two.

Slainthe Mhath!


----------



## GrahamD (27 Jul 2003)

Since Paul Martin is practically assured to become the next Prime Minister, take a look at this:

 http://www.heurepaulmartin.ca/where-paul-stands/stories_e.asp?id=553 

here is a few highlights if you don‘t want to look at the whole page.

"the leadership candidate called for a major foreign policy review, increased military spending, targeted foreign aid budgets and an immediate replacement of the Sea King helicopters."

"As an example, the military must have the capacity to lead missions in the Congo where reports of ethnic civil war have gone unanswered by multilateral organizations, including the United Nations."

â€œWe have to increase our military spending based on the post-September 11 model. The old model is nation-to-nation. It is now the fight against global terrorism.â€

"On the domestic front, Martin called for a national security system able to respond to everything from threats to the countryâ€™s transportation networks to protecting Arctic sovereignty."

I guess we will all see soon enough, if this is all just political maneuvering, and hot air, but It could be an exciting time, in my opinion, to be joining up.  Hopefully new courses, or trades would be implemented, lots of things long needing repair or replacement, would get it, it could be good.


----------



## onecat (27 Jul 2003)

You made some cool points, but there was only one thing I had a major problem with.  Rwanda.  First of all the UN didn‘t just sit and watch: there was a plan in place, but it was voted down.... by guess who the USA.  I‘m not saying the plan would of worked, but there was no action because it was veto not because of inaction.  The UN isn‘t the best place for forming peacekeeping missions, but the thing that people seem to forgot is that countries draw up the plans and they vote on them.  If the seruity coucil really wanted to have a real mission they could just draw it and actually vote for it.

Just my 2cents on the UN and peacekeeping.


----------



## BradT (28 Jul 2003)

That could make sence, but I still doubt a liberal doing that.
I also forgot attack aircraft
Canada should be part of the F-35 Mustang Program, and possibly consider some cheaper attack plane like the A-10 (they run at 7.5-9 million a peice USD).


----------



## Gorgo (28 Jul 2003)

To Mr. Willow,

>> First off, I‘m not in the army (working on it.

What trade are you planning to be part of?

>> The way I see it, it‘s not a matter of whether the threat is present at the moment or not. What really matters here is the question of sovereignty.

I agree with that.  I‘d say we‘d be in excellent shape if we got hold of at LEAST six SSNs (either the U.S. VIRGINIA class [name them after the provinces?] or the British TRAFALGAR since the LAs are no longer in production), put three boats on each coast, then have one boat on Arctic sovereignty patrol at all times, rotating from coast to coast.  Atop that, let the Coast Guard get their hands on improved icebreakers like the Polar 8 and have them be the more "visible" sign to outsiders that (with apologies to the McKenzie brothers     ) "Like, this is OUR Great White North, you hosers!  Take off!"

Unfortunately, as you mentioned in your post, we‘d have to seriously shake off this widespread attitude about the military and its place in Canadian society.  I think the ideas you bring up at the end of your post (the tax breaks, having better pay, streamlining the recruiting process, etc) sound very good.  But can we persuade the government to try this out?  I‘m not sure.

Something else that should be kept in mind, now that I think about it, is how our geographic position vis-a-vis the United States tends to factor into things like this.  One attitude I think seriously needs changing is the idea that the Americans would come to our rescue in case something happens in Canada.  We need people to realize if we‘re to truly call ourselves a *sovereign* nation, WE have to see to our own defence.  YES, team up with the Americans on matters like NORAD, anti-terror defence and the like (not to mention the mundane things like equipment procurement and the like).  YES, team up with the U.S., NATO and the UN on peacemaking operations.  But we have to assume all along that when it comes to something that threatens our national interests (as defined by public policy), WE have to see if we can deal with it on our own.

If we can make people across the country realize that, IMO, we‘d have taken a big step towards making some REAL changes in the CF.

Fred


----------



## Gorgo (28 Jul 2003)

To BradT,

>> I also forgot attack aircraft. Canada should be part of the F-35 Mustang Program, and possibly consider some cheaper attack plane like the A-10 (they run at 7.5-9 million a peice USD).

I think we‘d do real good if we got our hands on the Warthogs or something similar to that.  I‘m not sure if this is true or not, but the USAF is considering phasing out the A-10s and replacing them with a ground-attack version of the F-16s.  Who knows, we might be able to get them surplus.    

Fred


----------



## robertmullan (28 Jul 2003)

1. Reduce taskings abroad until we regain the bench strength to full fill the commitments.

2. Reduce the higher staff (generals) to reflect our current military strength

3 Increase the service to 80,000 total force.


----------



## zortag (28 Jul 2003)

Fred:
Well as for my trade, I feel I need to give a little backstory there.  I live in Ottawa but go to school in Lennoxville (just outside of Sherbrooke) so the only unit out there is the Sherbrooke Hussars.  Now I‘m pretty fluent in french, but I‘m not all about joining a french unit.  So instead, I‘m joining the CIC at BCS, which is a 5 minute jog from my rez.  I figure that some involvement is better that no involvement.

The plan is in 2 years when I finish my degree to transfer to Reg. Force, I‘m not exactly sure what trade yet, only time will tell....well that and the CFAT   


You make a good point about the Coast Guard and icebreakers, I had thought about it, but for some reason discounted it.  And I like the province naming scheme for the SSN‘s.  I can see the headlines now.  

Canada buys 10 NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR class submarines to patrol the artic!

(sorry to any newfies out there)

I do agree that our geographical proximity to the US makes many Canadians a little too comfortable with the state of affairs and tend to put the military on the back burner.  As with all of the public opinion problems I have no idea how to solve them.

To Radiohead:
My understanding of the situation in Rwanda is that Lt.Gen Dallaire saw the situation building up for months and had repeatedly asked for permission to move in and neutralize confirmed weapon caches that had been growing.  Because the UN‘s charter doesn‘t allow it to do anything more than "man the line" so to speak, the peacekeepers had to sit and watch the near genocide of a people but had their hands tied behind their backs unless they were directly attacked.  I‘m sure you‘re right about the US voting down the plan once hostilities started for real, but there was more than enough warning to deal with the problem before it became one.


----------



## BradT (28 Jul 2003)

Fred, I didnt know they stoped production of the LA class. And about the Warthogs, they are cheap new, so I could only imagine the used price, probably a price the librals could even deal with.
As for using the USA to protect us, our history shows that its more us protecting others, which sadly the USA is doing well in some places (Korea, Europe, Mid East) and horrible in other places (Africa). And being able to defend yourself is ohne of the first things a truly soverign nation should be doing (especially the worlds second largest.)

Does anyone else here get sick of hearing polititions saying Canada should get up to the average spendings and such with other NATO nations? First its stupid that we are not even average NATO spendings when were the largest NATO nation. Second all these people think we should be average, agian when we are the largest nation.


----------



## Cycophant (28 Jul 2003)

> First its stupid that we are not even average NATO spendings when were the largest NATO nation. Second all these people think we should be average, agian when we are the largest nation


I‘m going to assume you‘re referring to "largest" as total geographical size, not population.  That‘s a mistake, I feel.

True, our borders are big, and therefore we should field a large defensive force to legitimize our large claims (as mentioned above, with the patrolling of the arctic).  However, we are fairly low in population.  The only way to afford such large defense budgets would be to have a larger population base.  So, although our geographical size decides how much we _need_, our population decides how we can actually _have_.


----------



## zortag (28 Jul 2003)

Cycophant

Isn‘t that the point though? We don‘t need to spend 287 billion dollars on our military, we don‘t have the population. (Although maybe we should, might be fun   ). But we spend 1/2 of the per capita amount most other nations in the G-8 and NATO spend.  It just doesn‘t make any sense.  To me at least.  

We spend a total of around 7.8USD billion a year on the military.  Figure the American‘s have roughly 10 times the population we do.  So by the logic of the Canadian government, it would make sense that the American Mil. budget be around 80 billion. They spend over 3 and a half times that.  

Something doesn‘t make sense here.  Now if we can all agree that we‘d like to keep canada‘s social safety net in place, we still have a serious underfunding problem for our military.


Sorry if that post rambled on a bit, new job has messed up my sleep patterns something fierce.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (28 Jul 2003)

We‘re not the Americans.

Australia and New Zealand spend a similar amount of the their GNP on defence, but they get more bang for their buck, apparently.


----------



## zortag (28 Jul 2003)

*note I‘m not trying to turn this into a fact contest, I‘m just too used to writing papers for stat loving teachers, I‘m sorry*

Canada: pop 30 million, Mil. budget, 7.8 billion USD, or 1.1% of GDP, or 260 dollars per capita.

Australia: pop 20 million, Mil. Budget, 9.8 billion USD, or 2% of GDP. or 490 dollars per capita.

New Zealand: 3.9 million, Mil. Budget 515 million USD, or 1.2% of GDP, or 131 dollars per capita.

Now I‘m certainly not saying that we should pour money in our military at the expense of other important programs like the americans do, but Australia has a very comprehensive social safety net, and yet they manage to spend 2 billion a year more, with 10 million less people.

I‘m just trying to show that‘s it‘s possible to have a well funded military and a country that supports the less fortunate portions of their population.

(Just as a side-note to the New Zealand figures, bear in mind that they are still recovering from the complete economical restructuring of the country in 1984)


Once again I apologize for being stat obsessed, like someone was saying earlier, you can find statistics to support any opinion.  If you find ones contrary to these, let me know


----------



## Michael Dorosh (28 Jul 2003)

Yes, but what does NZ actually do with the money they spend?

How many generals do they bankroll with perks and enormous salaries and generous posting allowances?

How many Italian runway trucks will they have to replace this year?


----------



## zortag (28 Jul 2003)

Hey! I‘m having enough of a time with points I already have without getting into mismanagement of funds once they _get_ to the military.  I‘m just worried about money getting there in the first place....for now!


----------



## nULL (28 Jul 2003)

Australia has a very different social system than Canada does, one which is considerably less generous.


----------



## zortag (29 Jul 2003)

nULL, you‘re calling down the wrath of the statistics demon again!....or for the first time.  either way

Health Care

Australia spent 1980 dollars per capita in 90-98
Canada spent 2292 in the same time frame.

this is a difference of 8.5% of GDP in AUS vs 9.2%.

now since this is a difference almost as large as the difference in military budget, my argument might seem sunk, but wait!

with that money, AUS has .4 more physicians per 1000 people (2.5), twice as many hospital beds, (8.5 vs 4.2) and a 100% longer stay in hospital (15 vs 8 days)

Now not only does this highlight the lack of efficient medicare spending in Canada, it also seems to me like a better, more stable system. Health care being one of the staples of a solid social plan, seems like the Aussies aren‘t doing badly....

Without going into much detail, cause that‘s not what this topic....or forum for that matter is about, here are some more stats, on Australia‘s "considerably less generous" social system.

My computer is doing funny things, but off the top of my head, (and if you really want I‘ll get the figures for you tomorrow, when my computer no longer feels like displaying things in bizarre colours)australia spends around 1%of gdp less than we do on education, they have less people living under the poverty line than we do, with less money per capita, their unemployment rate is around the same as ours, with a solid unemployment program.....basically Australia‘s social welfare isn‘t much worse than ours at all. If anything, it seems to perform better, with less money.  

Once again, this has nothing to do with ideas to improve the CF and I don‘t feel like getting blasted for going off topic.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (29 Jul 2003)

Ah, but the entire point, I feel, is that Canada isn‘t doing well with the dollars they DO have - so why should the taxpayer have to shell out more - just to flush it down some general‘s toilet?

Perhaps DND is in the position because they have put themselves there.  Demonstrating fiscal responsibility, in the past, has meant freezing wages for soldiers while sending generals on junkets around the world.

Why should anyone believe that DND would do things differently now?  Has the Minister really demonstrated a solid grasp of how to run his department?  Can any minister with no military experience ever really do that to begin with?


----------



## nULL (30 Jul 2003)

Nice stats, but I was trying to draw attention to the state of two-tier health care systems in Australia; perhaps I should have just SAID so eh? And "social programs" are not always defined by health care exclusively.


----------



## Cycophant (30 Jul 2003)

> Why should anyone believe that DND would do things differently now? Has the Minister really demonstrated a solid grasp of how to run his department? Can any minister with no military experience ever really do that to begin with?


Well, our almost-guaranteed next PM is going to be Paul Martin.  Although the CF would be at the mercy of whoever he assigns, he _is_ an astute businessman.  If anyone could turn around the fiscal problems that Canada, and indirectly the CF, have run into, it would be someone with a good business sense, I feel.

We‘ll all just have to cross our fingers and hold Mr. Martin to his word.


----------

