# CA calls for 80,000 Personelle including Airborne



## ninty9 (2 May 2003)

â€œThe New North â€“ Strong and Freeâ€  
OTTAWA â€“ Canadian Alliance Leader Stephen Harper, joined by CA Defence Critics Leon Benoit and Deb Grey, today presented The New North â€“ Strong and Free: Protecting Canadian Sovereignty and Contributing to Global Stability, the Defence Policy White Paper of the Official Opposition.

â€œIâ€™m extremely proud of the work that the Canadian Alliance Defence Team has done on this White Paper,â€ said Harper. â€œOur party recognizes that any time the people of Canada have called upon the Armed Forces, they have answered the call. Now itâ€™s our turn to defend our brave men and women in uniform.

â€œThe last Liberal White Paper on defence was back in 1994. The New North â€“ Strong and Free fills a void that the Liberals have left for nearly a decade,â€ added Harper. â€œ Since September 11, 2001, that leadership vacuum has become only more obvious. For far too long, the Liberal doctrine of â€˜Soft Powerâ€™ has resulted in neglect of our Armed Forces, to the point where a crisis now exists. The Alliance rejects that doctrine. â€˜Soft Powerâ€™ cannot and will not work within a new global realignment, where Canadaâ€™s diplomatic credibility depends, in large part, on maintaining effective military hard power.â€

The New North â€“ Strong and Free builds upon the previous Alliance Defence White Paper, Canada Strong and Free, which was written in 2000 by Art Hanger, MP (Calgary Northeast). Senior Defence Critic Leon Benoit and the Alliance Defence Team, including critics Deborah Grey and Rob Anders, produced the updated White Paper to respond to the proliferation of international terrorism, as evidenced by the events of 9/11, as well as to provide a vision of Canadaâ€™s role in the new global alignment centered around a single superpower.

â€œUnder the Liberals, our Forces have had to make do with out-of-date, and in some cases unsafe equipment,â€ said Benoit. â€œThey have been deployed into dangerous situations by a government that has dodged its responsibility to provide them with the resources they need. Our troops have made us all proud, but their success at home and abroad has come despite the Liberals, not because of them. Iâ€™m proud to be associated with a party that doesnâ€™t shy away from its responsibility to our men and women in uniform. They are among the best in the world, and they deserve support and respect. We will stand with our troops, and for the safety and security of Canadians.â€

The New North â€“ Strong and Free makes 33 specific recommendations to improve Parliamentary oversight of National Defence, improve Canadian capabilities in the War on Terror, and ensure that the forces have the equipment and personnel necessary to meet their domestic and international commitments.

 http://www.canadianalliance.ca/english/index-details.asp?ID=2008 

Check out the entire paper here (PDF Format):  http://www.canadianalliance.ca/pdf/StrongAndFree.pdf


----------



## Illucigen (2 May 2003)

Too bad it isnt the Liberal White Paper.


----------



## Illucigen (2 May 2003)

A helicopter/light carrier??? 

This is like a dream paper...


----------



## ninty9 (2 May 2003)

I saw Stephen Harper on Politics on CBC and he was talking about all the things they want.  He was asked about more ships and Harper mentioned an Aircraft Carrier.

If we were to get an aircraft carrier that would mean that we would need planes.  I was smiling through out the entire interview.

Its crazy the amount of stuff they want to do.


----------



## RCA (3 May 2003)

Is amazing the bulsh** you can put out when your not in power.

 Cut taxes and build an aircraft carrier. And you can‘t even smoke dope because their against it. as John Stossel say, "give a break"


----------



## SNoseworthy (3 May 2003)

I had a quick look over the things they want to do by 2015, and the entire "report" is more of a glorified election platform to fool the average Canadian (uninformed on military issues), into voting CA. 

I cracked up when I saw "helicopter carrier", oh, and not to mention "amphibious capabilities". We don‘t need a carrier, of any type. That topic has been discussed to death at my board, and the navy guys agree that while a carrier would be nice, it‘s definately not needed right now. Amphibious capbilities is ludicrious. We haven‘t used such capabilities since D-Day, and we‘re not likely to use it soon.

They also want to create ANOTHER spy agency...what a waste of funds. They should instead expand the CSIS Act. A lot cheaper, and a lot less red tape, than having two agencies (three if you count CSE). On top of that, they want to create a national security council. That I just don‘t see a need for.

The Alliance brags about their $20 billion budget. They‘re going to need it with all the useless equipment and organizations they‘re going to open. The next government needs to focus on fixing the poorly managed Defence department finances. That‘ll free up a lot of poorly used money for the major projects. 

There are some good ideas, but the rhetoric ideas outnumber the good ones. Overall, I‘m not very impressed with their election campaign...er..report.... It‘s just a whole lot of recycled ideas, including some very bad, very stupid, ideas. 

Geez...a carrier...LMAO...the Alliance would buy something useless as long as it would mean being able to show it off to the United States....


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 May 2003)

Im sure the states would be VERY impressed with a carrier that has an 8 billion dollar fire fighting system because the sea king helicopters can take off but they keep crashing on landing.


----------



## Illucigen (3 May 2003)

OH no. they are gonna replace those. and buy new destroyers, tanks (second hand), attack helicopters, heavy lift/troop transport helicopters, support ships, long range transport ships, long range heavy-lift transport planes, another 25000 Reg Force troops, another 35000 reserve troops and equip and train them all to standard.

Oh wait, at least another 2 subs, (6 for each coast) and modify em all so they work under the icepacks (they are against nuclear power, for the waste of money!) 

For a mere 9 Billion.

****, if they can do it....


----------



## Jungle (3 May 2003)

> Amphibious capbilities is ludicrious. We haven‘t used such capabilities since D-Day, and we‘re not likely to use it soon.


Just a little correction: amphibious ops were used by the CDN Army as recently as 1999. There were some "non-combatant evacuation" exercises held on the East coast with Navy and Army assets, and the post-ex reports stated that the CF lacked amphibious capabilities. Recommendations were to develop those capabilities and shift part of the Navy to "brown water" roles. In Oct 1999, the 3 R22eR Para coy-group made an operational amphibious landing in East Timor as part of the INTERFET mission.
Maybe the CA is exaggerating a little... but if they do only half of what they say, it will be a lot better than the "nothing" the libs have done, and are planning for the future.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (3 May 2003)

I have a hard time believing the Alliance would carry through on any of this stuff if by some miracle they took power.  Health care and provincial concerns would overwhelm them, and they would pander to the provinces and the mainstream demands of Canadians (which face it, doesn‘t include defence spending) just as much as the liberals, in order to stay in power.  

Then again, I can‘t believe I would ever long for the days of Brian Mulroney, either.  Looking back, I have to think the Conservatives had some good ideas AND an ability to follow through on one or two of them.


----------



## SNoseworthy (3 May 2003)

Jungle, I‘m aware of the East Timor "landing". At that time, we were able to use the RAN assets. We‘re not likely to be in a situation where there‘s no allied force with amphib capabilities to provide us with. 

We don‘t need them, we really haven‘t had a use for them at all, save for one case in the last 60 years. The frequency at which we use them doesn‘t justify the expenditure when there are far more important projects to look at like strategic lift, CADRE, ALSC (which will benefit the army more than any amphib capabilitiy) etc.

Like I said before, the Alliance is just trying to impress the United States, when in reality they need to be responsible and focus on the things we need, not the things that would be "nice to have so we can brag to our allies".

As for the subs, another waste of money. When the northwest passage opens up more and traffic increases through it, then we need to look at arctic-capable submarines. Until then, there are higher priority projects that need that money. 

Furthermore, like a true political platform, the CA report is extremely vague and makes all these big promises to get support. I will not call their plan a good one simply because it lacks detail. As someone above pointed out - they‘re promising to train 20000 more regs and 40000 or so more reserves with $9 billion, which also has to go towards purchasing carriers, LSDs, and a bunch of other equipment that isn‘t cheap at all. For strategic lift, we‘re looking at billions of dollars alone. The Alliance plan needs to tackle the small things that will make or break their overall promises before it can be considered a good plan. All it is now is a bunch of promises that will cost more than the amount of money it will authorize. 

I‘m beginning to think Harper pulled this plan out of his a$$ instead of consulting credible defence analysts.

This entire report brings to mind a very true saying:

While in opposition promise the world, and hope you never get elected!

Heh, $9 billion wouldn‘t begin to cover the additional equipment needed to equip an extra 60,000 personnel, not to mention the logistics. This plan would do more financial harm to the Canadian Forces, even with its $20 billion budget proposal.

As my buddy said: 

"Like a kid in a candy shop.  Ooohooh! I want that!  And that!  And that!"


----------



## ninty9 (3 May 2003)

Well, Harper yesterday said that to do all of this would take many years.  its not like their going to go out and buy all this stuff the day if they ever got into power.  They‘d have to spread it out and get money from elsewhere over time, or perhaps increasing the budget even more.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 May 2003)

What an amazing boost to our military that would be if it were true. Imagine all the jobs it would create. 
All the local companies that would get awarded contracts to make uniforms, helicopters, though i doubt we would see the helicopters made or bought this century.  (Thats one thing i think canada needs quite a bit, proper transport/troop helicopters and also attack helicopters).
The relief that would be placed on reg force personal having more soldiers to pick from when deploying overseas and a better reserve world where were not walking around a park practicing fighting by yelling "bang" and being laughed at.

 The last white paper which involved bob fowler and his lap dog John de chastelain? Seemed like it was a great idea at the time, in the end it like every other great idea in the military it costed us more.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (3 May 2003)

But Ghost, isn‘t awarding contracts locally kind of the problem?  We chose the LSVW not because it was the best truck, but because we could create temporary jobs in BC for White Western Star.  What happened to all the people who built LSVWs when the units were all finished and shipped?

Do we want decent equipment, or do we want Canadian-built equipment?  One tends to get the feeling that the two aren‘t compatible!


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 May 2003)

Michael I couldn‘t agree with you more. In my opinion thats one of the biggest problems we have with the military. Instead of buying the best piece of equipment or most economical etc.. we give the contract to local companies who sometimes are not the best choice. 

That being said i‘m pretty sure the goverment will not change it‘s pattern of giving contracts to ‘friends‘ so at atleast in one perspective we will still reap the bennifits of having more money pumped into our economy. But like you said, in the end the equipment will still most likely be pretty sketchy.


----------



## bossi (3 May 2003)

Ah, but it‘s grand to dream ...

A friend in the Royal Netherlands Navy was telling me about his new ship - the ROTTERDAM.

Quite popular on NATO exercises apparently.
He said the other NATO countries are queue up to "rent" it whenever they can - it‘s one of these troopships with a helipad (of course, it‘s only a pipe dream - the mere thought of the CF being self-sufficient, with a ship of their own that could move troops and their equipment, and then have choppers to offload them at the other end - egads, that must frighten the heck out of the Liberal party supporters who benefit each time the CF is forced to contract out logistics because they don‘t have any of their own ...)

Heck - I figure as long as it floats, it can still do coastal/fishery patrols, and then when it‘s needed it could be used to transport stuff (oh, what was I thinking ... the Liberal party coffers would suffer if contractors couldn‘t bilk DND out of money for arranging debacles like the "Katie" ...)

Of course, the Liberals would never allow Canada to purchase a ship like this, simply because ... it has a flight deck capable of accomodating the EH101 - Yikes! - that automatically disqualifies it, right?

I‘ve cut and pasted the specs, or here‘s a link, if you ‘d like to look it over for yourself:

LPD ROTTERDAM CLASS LANDING PLATFORM DOCK 

LPD ROTTERDAM CLASS LANDING PLATFORM DOCK, NETHERLANDS 
Schelde Shipbuilding of the Royal Schelde Company, based in Vlissingen in the Netherlands, has built the Rotterdam class Landing Platform Dock (LPD) ship for the Royal Netherlands Navy. The Royal Schelde Company were awarded the contract to build Hr Ms Rotterdam in April 1993 and the ship was launched in 1997. The Royal Netherlands Navy has plans to order a second Rotterdam Class LPD, Hr Ms Johan de Witt, to enter service in 2007. The new vessel will be equipped with command and control facilities for a Combined Joint Task Force.

Hr Ms Rotterdam (L 800) is one of a range of Landing Platform Dock ships designed by Schelde. The LPD Enforcer series of transportation vessels range in size from 9,000 to 14,000t maximum displacement. Schelde is offering a range of ship configurations and capability options based on the modular LPD Enforcer design. 

DESIGN
The overall length of the hull of the Rotterdam class is 162.2m, its breadth is 25m and its maximum draught is 5.9m. The maximum displacement is 14,000t. Rotterdam is capable of carrying out helicopter operations up to Sea State 6. Operations with landing craft are possible up to Sea State 4. Amphibious tasks include the ability to embark, transport and disembark one Marine Corps battalion, including the associated combat and logistic support vehicles and equipment. The ship carries provisions and stores for battalion transportation for more than ten days. The vessel is also capable of transferring reserve forces and for the evacuation of casualties. 

The ship is operated by a crew of 124, including 13 officers. Accommodation is also provided for a fully equipped marine battalion or up to 613 troops. Hr Ms Rotterdam has facilities to transport 170 armoured personnel carriers, or 33 main battle tanks, and also docking facilities for up to six landing craft, for example six LCVP Mark 3, four LCU Mark 9 or four LCM 8 landing craft.

Hr Ms Rotterdam has extensive fully equipped hospital facilities with a medical treatment room, a medical operating theatre and a medical laboratory.

WEAPON SYSTEMS
Two Thales Nederland (formerly Signaal) Goalkeeper close in weapon systems are installed on the bow deck and on the upper deck immediately overlooking the helicopter landing deck. Goalkeeper‘s Gatling-principle 30mm gun provides a maximum firing rate of 4,200 rounds/min with a range of 1,500m. To support the Goalkeeper CIWS, a Thales Nederland IRSCAN infrared search and track system is fitted. IRSCAN can detect and track targets to a maximum range of 20km.

Four Oerlikon 20mm guns are located on the bridge deck. Rotterdam has the capacity to carry up to 36 torpedoes in the magazine area. 

AIRCRAFT 
The 58m x 25m flight deck has landing spots for two large helicopters such as the EH 101. The aircraft hangar is sufficiently large to accommodate up to four EH101 helicopter or six medium-size helicopters such as the Super Puma or the NH 90. The hangar has extensive helicopter maintenance and spares facilities. 

COUNTERMEASURES 
The ship‘s decoy system consists of four SRBOC (Super Rapid Blooming Offboard Countermeasures) decoy launchers from Sippican, which fire infrared decoys and chaff for confusion, distraction and seduction of incoming anti-ship missiles. It is also fitted with the AN/SLQ-25 Nixie towed torpedo decoy, from Sensytech Inc of Newington, Virginia. 

SENSORS 
The radar suite includes: Thales Nederland DA08 air and surface search radar operating at E and F bands, Kelvin Hughes ARPA surface search radar operating at I-band and two sets of navigation and aviation radar operating at I-band. 

PROPULSION 
The ship is equipped with four Stork Wartsila diesel generators, model 12SW28 generating 14MW, and two Holec motors generating 12MW, driving two shafts. The bow thruster is rated at 185kW. The top speed is over 18 knots, and the range at 12 knots is over 6,000 miles.


----------



## SNoseworthy (3 May 2003)

Bossi, it would be great to have some Rotterdam‘s, however, that would interfere with the ALSC project, which is currently underway to provide the navy with up to 4 multi-role ships to serve primarily as tankers, but also as sealift ships. While the ALSC might not be as amphibious as the Rotterdam‘s are, they‘ll be good nonetheless in deploying the army around the world. We have a limited budget we have to think multi-role, hence why we‘ll be getting ALSC ships, instead of 4 oilers and X number of sealift ships seperately.


----------



## Jungle (4 May 2003)

What would be wrong with building 2 x ALSC and 2 x Rotterdams. The Netherlands with a population below 20 million and a coastline a fraction (a very small one) of Canada‘s can have ships dedicated for each role, and we can‘t... COME ON !!! Be a little open-minded. We NEED to be able to deploy our troops ourselves, and support them in theater, whether through the use of ships or planes (or both), and pull them out whenever we decide to do so. Pulling the troops out of Timor was such a headache that they had to fly 2 C-130s from Canada to take us back to Australia. This shortly after the Protecteur left for Canada. If we had a decent support ship out there, we could have pulled out at our convenience. 
In today‘s world, if you can‘t make it to the stage fast, you‘re just not part of the show. And if you‘re not in the show, you don‘t have a say in how it should be run. And don‘t give me that crap "we‘ll buy it when we need it" or whatever... today‘s wars are short and intense. You fight the war with what you have, and right now we don‘t have much...


----------



## SNoseworthy (4 May 2003)

Well, that‘s a good point on the ALSC-Rotterdam thing Jungle. Right now, we have 2 oilers, one per coast. The main problem with this is that with the deployments, one is overseas, while the other is in drydock, or stood down after a deployment. Either way, we have one coast without an oiler at most times because of deployments, sometimes, both coasts are without oilers. This is a major concern for domestic operations where oilers might be required in emergencies. The reason why DND is looking at 4 ALSC vessels is that there will be more than one per coast, thereby reducing the problem of having the fleet go without an oiler domestically and for any operation other than the op that the oiler is deployed on. It‘s not wise to have just two oilers, four provides more strategic value. So, getting 2/2 as you suggest wouldn‘t work. We‘d need 4/2 - and with the current budget, and even the Alliance‘s proposed $20 bil one, I doubt if the funds would be available to buy 2 Rotterdam‘s, which really aren‘t needed, to complement the 4 ALSC, all of which are needed, in the sealift role.


----------



## Korus (4 May 2003)

Ideally, it would be nice for the CF to buy equipment from the best bidder, even if they aren‘t from Canada. It would at least send the message to Canadian companies to try to raise the bar if they want the contracts. Right now it seems like they are sure they‘ll get the contracts, even if what they deliver is sub-par.


----------



## Jungle (4 May 2003)

I thought the whole point behind the ALSC project is to give these ships different capabilities, including the capacity to deploy troops to an area of ops. They are also meant to have ro-ro capabilities, C and C, medical and dental facilities and a large helicopter deck. Maybe we can get away with it, but it remains to see if it is going to come through... by the way, I was briefed on the ALSC some time ago and there was talk of a fifth unit. That extra unit would be permanently attached to the Army for trg / ops.


----------



## SNoseworthy (5 May 2003)

The point of the ALSC as I understand it from some navy guys I‘ve chatted with is primarily to replace the PROTECTEUR class oilers, which are in need of replacement after over 30 years of service. The sealift capability is just an addon. If you‘re going to get a new ship for one purpose (UNREP), and you‘re in need of another service that the same platform can perform, you might as well try to fit it into the design, hence why ALSC will have some sealift capability.

It would be nice to have a 5th unit, that way, we could have the 5th unit fully dedicated to the sealift and other extra functions as its primary purpose, resupplying the navy, would already be covered by the other four ships. 

Ideally, it would be nice for the best product to win, I agree. However, no government works that way. They all go for the cheapest bidder who meets the requirements.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 May 2003)

Re: cheapest bidders; had they gone for the cheapest bidder when they were purchasing art for the national gallery, perhaps they wouldn‘t have spent 1.6 million for Voice of Fire?

Everyone has their pet projects; those of us on the board have a vested interest in money going to the Forces.  SNoseworthy does raise the very good point that a bit of perspective will tell us that others want to spend money too; it is possible many hospitals in Canada have MRI machines lacking "bells and whistles" because money went to the Forces instead of to health care.  It‘s unfortunately a balancing act that too few critics here and everywhere have any appreciation for.

Of course, some items such as exorbitantly priced artwork, books of "blonde jokes", and subterranean walkways for MPs to get to their cars do make one wonder if those in charge of the money have an appreciation for it either!


----------



## rolandstrong (5 May 2003)

Well if there is talk of a fifth unit, it would be great if they could bring an army unit (regular) back to British Columbia. Integration with the Navy would be good, and we would have a pacific based force.


----------



## SNoseworthy (5 May 2003)

Michael, I agree, it‘s a waste of money for books on blonde jokes. Everyone knows that the only joke book worth buying are Newfie jokes


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 May 2003)

SNoseworthy - heh, point taken.  In all seriousness though, being from Alberta - I‘ve yet to meet a girl from Newfoundland who wasn‘t completely down to earth, unlike some of the pickings around here.  Is it any different where you‘re from?  Maybe I just have a thing for the accent, but I‘ve never met a girl from Newfoundland I didn‘t like; I‘d rate them as the all-round best in Canada.

Still, given what they did at Gallipoli and the Somme, and again in the RA in WW II, I‘d never complain about sharing my trench with a Newfoundlander.

Is it true what Stompin Tom says about the Man in the Moon?


----------



## SNoseworthy (5 May 2003)

Well Michael, 

I‘ve encountered a few snobby women in my time, but for the most part, all the women (who are Newfs) that I‘ve met are o.k. 



> Is it true what Stompin Tom says about the Man in the Moon?


I‘ve never heard his comment on that...all I know by Stompin Tom is the Good old hockey game


----------



## humint (5 May 2003)

Talk about a pipe dream -- what the ****  have they been smokin‘. 

BTW, didn‘t I see Harper, Benoit, and Grey at the Million Marijuana March in Toronto over the weekend? I think they won the award for ‘best stoner.‘


----------



## Pikache (5 May 2003)

Perhaps we should stick with things that really matters first, like getting enough ammo for genuine training or funds to allow troops to parade once every wek?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (6 May 2003)

Well, there‘s nothing wrong with some long term planning, I just with the party that was actually in power was the ones doing it!


----------



## SNoseworthy (6 May 2003)

In my opinion, long term planning is key, because if we don‘t know where we‘re going, we‘ll just stumble around like fools, totally unprepared and unready to deal with the revolution in military affairs.

However, Bedpan does raise an excellent point. I find it terrible that reserve units run out of money for weekly parades sometimes months before the end of the fiscal year. The amount of money a reserve unit gets is proportional to how many of its members show up for parades I believe. While this is a good way to look at funding, so that the more active, dedicated units, get the funds (well, it‘s more proper to say the units with the more dedicated personnel, even though I‘m reluctant to make that distinguishment) it deserves. However, it is important for us to consider that even though a unit might not have as much active participation as another reserve unit, it is still vital that that unit has enough money to allow the dedicated personnel within it to regularly train.

It is also important to remember that DND gives reserve units a good bit of money, and most make it through on that money. Thus, in addition to better funding for reserve units, DND has to crack down on wasteful spending by those units. I‘m sure there are a few cases where the unit hasn‘t been able to parade because its financial administrators have blown all the funds on unnecessary endeavours.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 May 2003)

Good point. As it stands now (i think) a reserve regiment is given money to support 70% of their numbers. If 90% of the regiment show up for parade nights and excercises they will run out of money.


----------



## clinton_84 (12 May 2003)

What does everyone think about their plan to do away with the CF and reinstate the Canadian Army, RCN, RCAF?


----------



## 762gunner (12 May 2003)

Why not have regular audits run by Fin personnel not affiliated with the bde a subj unit is in?  I have seen too many wasted dollars by people that do not have to account for their expenditure.  Not enough people believe in the fact that the unit mission should come first, NOT special events for a select few.  Pers in charge of accounts should not only be held accountable (in many cases, they are NOT), but also recv some training in budget management and and the management of proper priorities.  PERHAPS the money each unit needs is there, it‘s just not being handled responsibly.


----------



## SNoseworthy (12 May 2003)

Splitting up the Canadian Forces won‘t do anything to help the situation. All they‘re doing is appealing to the nostagla (sp?) of the older military personnel in my opinion. Removing the current level of integration will meanthe amount of expenditures that DND incurs going up which is not the best financial scenario. Right now, DND has a good infrastructure plan for expenses with the integrated structure. No need to fix something that isn‘t broken.


----------

