Author Topic: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy  (Read 75871 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,832
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #25 on: October 21, 2015, 15:05:42 »
WRT the F35 - There is a work around

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

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

Quote
First Navy F35 pilot completes first month’s training

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

The Fleet Air Arm pilot is learning to fly the jet, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter alongside Squadron Leader Frankie Buchler from the RAF and is supported by a 13-strong team of British maintainers – seven are Royal Navy, six RAF.

Sqn Leader Buchler was the first British military non-test pilot to take the F35 aloft, with Lt Cdr Tidball following closely behind.

Two Royal Navy reservists, in their ‘day jobs’ as test pilots, have also flown it: Cdr Simon Hargreaves and Lt Cdr Peter Wilson.

Speaking at Eglin Air Force Base, Lt Cdr Tidball – who has over 1,300 hours behind him in the cockpit of Harriers, followed by over 500 hours flying the United States Navy FA-18E/F Super Hornet – says the F35 is “an exceptional aircraft to fly.”

“It’s extremely responsive, it has a lot of available thrust and the fly-by-wire control system makes the aircraft simple to fly,” he said.

“My background is the Sea Harrier – a pilot’s aeroplane, a stick and rudder type aircraft.

"The advanced flight control system in the F-35 reduces the amount of capacity I have to expend on simply flying the aircraft; instead it allows me to focus on operating the advanced mission systems and sensors so that I can employ the aircraft effectively in an operational environment.”

The small British team are based with VMFAT 501 – Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 501 which was formed in 2010 to bring the F35B into service with the US Marine Corps.

Collectively, the British and American pilots are putting in eight to 12 sorties every day from the air base in north-west Florida.

The UK currently has three test versions of the F35B – the short take-off/vertical landing variant of the aircraft – which are being used not just to train the pilots, but also the engineers and technicians in the art of maintaining a stealth fighter which is two generations ahead of the Harrier, the Royal Navy’s last front-line fast jet.

Lt Cdr Tidball, who is from Weston-super-mare in Somerset and spent much of his career at Royal Naval Air Station Yeovilton, says the shared experiences of the RN and RAF personnel “complement each other well.”

Recently and for the first time ever the two pilots took up the initial two British prototypes for a joint flight.

“We are making good progress, it was really satisfying to be flying in formation with my RAF colleague in the first two British stealth fighters, it’s just another small milestone enroute to operational test and IOC” said Lt Cdr Tidball.

“It really is an indication that this programme is going somewhere when you’ve got British pilots flying British aeroplanes – excellent.

"It’s a testament to the people that are not just flying it, but are maintaining it as well.”

Although the F35 is assembled in the USA by Lockheed Martin, the fighter is an Anglo-American venture with around one seventh of it designed and built in the UK.

Around 130 British firms are providing parts and equipment for it, worth around £1bn per year to the UK economy.

Lt Cdr Tidball added:

“The stealth capability and advanced systems will allow us to penetrate enemy airspace that we couldn’t have dreamed of in the Harrier; this combined with the aircrafts STOVL capability will allow us to operate off the Queen Elizabeth class carriers to deliver a maritime strike capability that’s frankly, unrivalled.

"I’m extremely excited about the aircraft getting on to the carrier. I really hope that I’m lucky enough to be there, flying one of these aircraft off it.”

Once training at Eglin is completed the British team is due to decamp from Florida to Edwards Air Force Base in California where they will carry out operational tests to prepare it for frontline service.

The Fleet Air Arm and Royal Air Force are due to start receiving front-line F35s in 2016, operating out of RAF Marham, near King’s Lynn, where land-based testing and training flights will continue through 2017.

The first test flights from HMS Queen Elizabeth are planned in 2018.

The Fleet Air Arm Museum has a new exhibition opening shortly supported by BAE Systems and the Aircraft Carrier Alliance that will include material from Lt Cdr Tidball and his F35 experiences.

Naval Airpower for the 21st Century…the carrier story continues tells the story of the Royal Navy’s Queen Elizabeth class carriers. HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are the next chapter in the proud and honourable history of Royal Navy aircraft carriers and naval aviation.

This exhibition explains how these new ships came into being and highlights the aircraft that will be flown from them and the people who will operate them.

This exhibition will be open for the 2013 summer holiday season.

Please see www.fleetairarm.com for more details.

Fleet Air Arm Museum, RNAS Yeovilton, Ilchester, Somerset, BA22 8HT

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

Expeditionary effort could be Canadian pilots in ABCA seats or it could be Canadian helos.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 25,935
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #26 on: October 21, 2015, 15:36:31 »
Then, I suggest you go to the Navy "AOR replacement and JSS" thread in these forum. Jollyjacktar put the Project Resolve website link there on October 19.

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

Thanks. Just finished it.

Online jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 131,072
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,452
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #27 on: October 21, 2015, 15:43:31 »
Seeing as I've already done their survey, I used their contact form to quote you and add what I said in reply too.  So they'll get it twice then.  Maybe it will stick.   :nod:
I'm just like the CAF, I seem to have retention issues.

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 25,935
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #28 on: October 21, 2015, 15:49:39 »
Seeing as I've already done their survey, I used their contact form to quote you and add what I said in reply too.  So they'll get it twice then.  Maybe it will stick.   :nod:

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

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 177,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,424
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #29 on: October 21, 2015, 17:10:17 »
If the Liberals did focus on the Logistics side of things that wouldn't be all bad....Nor would an emphasis on Light Infantry, Engineers, Medics and Sigs.

Why?

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

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

Funding and procurement needs to be balanced but if the scale tips slightly one way over the other, it should be on the "F Echelon" elements of the RCN, C Army and RCAF.   :2c:
The only time you have too much gas is when you're on fire.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,832
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #30 on: October 21, 2015, 17:30:23 »
Why?

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

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

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

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

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


 

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 177,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,424
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #31 on: October 21, 2015, 17:41:30 »
Good points but I wonder how much of this is because of inefficiency outside the CAF/DND.  PWGSC.

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

My most recent experience in an operational context opened my eyes on the ability of the CAF to supply items that in my line of work are 'no brainer - we must have extras of these on hand'.  Simple things like flashlights and flying gloves.  I do, however, have brand new mukluks in my B25 kit.  Not much use in the current op theatre.   ^-^
« Last Edit: October 21, 2015, 17:46:21 by Eye In The Sky »
The only time you have too much gas is when you're on fire.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 11,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 481
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #32 on: October 21, 2015, 18:54:51 »
I desparately would like to see military procurement get rolled into a single departement.  We buy enough small things, and enough big things, that we already effectively have dedicated specialists.  The problem is now they answer to four different bosses.

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

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

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

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

Offline Baz

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 8,440
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 375
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #33 on: October 21, 2015, 19:24:07 »
F ech win battles, logistic Ian win wars.  The person who drove that home the best for me was a RCR LCol.

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

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

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

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

FUBAR.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 177,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,424
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #34 on: October 21, 2015, 19:34:45 »
Then I guess we are far worse off than I realized.   How we fix the F, A and B echelons across the board is... (looking for thoughts from those who understand that beast).  NP made one suggestion above.

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

You still have to be able to win the battles to win the war. 
The only time you have too much gas is when you're on fire.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 11,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 481
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #35 on: October 21, 2015, 19:38:49 »
F ech win battles, logistic Ian win wars.  The person who drove that home the best for me was a RCR LCol.

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

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

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

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

FUBAR.

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

Offline Baz

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 8,440
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 375
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #36 on: October 21, 2015, 20:09:13 »
Common LCMMs for common equipment make sense.  ADM (Mat) is FUBAR, especially with the existence of PWGSC.

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

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

Offline Ostrozac

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 26,400
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 641
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #37 on: October 21, 2015, 20:15:44 »
Redirecting the Army (and RCAF) towards traditional, baby-blue beret style peacekeeping will pacify one part of the Liberal base and ease some spending pressures.

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

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



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

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,206
  • Freespeecher
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #38 on: October 21, 2015, 21:15:54 »
Ultimately, we need to understand how the powers that be think about defense (if they do at all). Nonsensical pronouncements like replacing bombing and boots on the ground with aid distribution shows an astonishing lack of understanding of how the world works (you are going to be able to distribute jack s*** if you don't control the ground, and of course you need the logistical chain going all the way back to warehouses in Canada to get the goods from point a to b in the first place). And cancellation of the CF-35 kills the ability of the CF to learn and practice "network node" forms of warfare for a generation or more, making us increasingly inoperable with our allies and unable to effectively defend against such forms of warfare by peer enemies.

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

Be careful what you wish for......
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 54,520
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,565
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #39 on: October 21, 2015, 21:38:36 »
Ostrozac: Indeed:

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

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

Check NDP's numbers when platforming during campaign:

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

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,459
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #40 on: October 21, 2015, 21:49:53 »
Well, we can always dump the aid and let local militants take charge of distribution.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

Omnia praesidia vestra capta sunt nobis.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

"Yet another in a long line of books about how libertarians are plotting to enslave you by devolving power to the individual and leaving you alone" - Warren Meyer, author of Coyote Blog

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 22,114
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,129
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #41 on: October 22, 2015, 00:15:24 »
Ultimately, we need to understand how the powers that be think about defense (if they do at all). Nonsensical pronouncements like replacing bombing and boots on the ground with aid distribution shows an astonishing lack of understanding of how the world works (you are going to be able to distribute jack s*** if you don't control the ground, and of course you need the logistical chain going all the way back to warehouses in Canada to get the goods from point a to b in the first place). And cancellation of the CF-35 kills the ability of the CF to learn and practice "network node" forms of warfare for a generation or more, making us increasingly inoperable with our allies and unable to effectively defend against such forms of warfare by peer enemies.

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

Be careful what you wish for......
yes, I'm sure Europe is falling way behind as well then.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 177,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,424
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #42 on: October 22, 2015, 00:44:20 »
Aside from being an Army Sigs Pte " fresh out of basic" is there something else in your resume that adds value and credibility to your input?
The only time you have too much gas is when you're on fire.

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 22,114
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,129
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #43 on: October 22, 2015, 01:01:09 »
Aside from being an Army Sigs Pte " fresh out of basic" is there something else in your resume that adds value and credibility to your input?
Logic? Also, haven't updated that since, well, when I was fresh out of basic.

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

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

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 177,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,424
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #44 on: October 22, 2015, 01:24:44 »
I just like to know who has an opinion, vice an informed and/or experience-based opinion.  Lots of folks in green DEU think the air force is simpler than it is;  I was one of them  not all that many years ago.  Now having operated in a coalition environment and joint environment in a 3D battlespace maritime and overland, I "get" why air force mission element types need to be able to run with the horses.
The only time you have too much gas is when you're on fire.

Offline Baz

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 8,440
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 375
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #45 on: October 22, 2015, 05:36:23 »
If Europe can operate with American fighters without falling behind, I don't see why canada would if we picked up a European fighter.

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

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

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

Most European countries *are* falling behind.

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

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

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,206
  • Freespeecher
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #46 on: October 22, 2015, 06:23:01 »
Altair, the modalities of warfare have expanded so dramatically even in just the last 10 years that anyone who is serious about defense realizes that *we* need vastly expanded capabilities, not the cancellation of cutting edge technologies. Consider in a different context that in the 1980's we had the ability to defend ground forces against incoming aircraft and PGM's using ADATS/Skyguard; a capability that folded it's tent and was retired in the 1990's and never renewed. How easy do you think it would be to revive GBAD expertise and re acquire the technologies needed for the expanded C-RAM (Counter Rockets, Artillery & Missiles) role from scratch if rocket attacks against deployed NATO/CF forces in Ukraine or Syria were to take place?

Network node devices like the CF-35 are more than just shiny aircraft; their sensors and capabilities can be used to control all kinds of other capabilities, leveraging everything that we have now and could get in the future. No network nodes, no leverage. This affects all services, not just the RCAF. The very limited and short term thinking which characterized Liberal defense pronouncements isn't just detrimental to the CF in a near peer environment (and like it or not, hot spots like Ukraine, Syria or the South China Sea are "Near Peer" environments), but will also have a very negative impact when applied to the mythical "Blue Beret" missions. How do you think a handful of CF service members deployed in destroyed states can leverage their small numbers and influence in that environment? (While the CF-35 itself would not be useful on a mythical Blue Beret mission, having skill and knowledge of network warfare, as well as other tools to employ it will).
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Online jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 131,072
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,452
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #47 on: October 22, 2015, 09:45:00 »
I agree, if this comes to pass, we, in the navy are euchered.  http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1318027-rumoured-top-pick-for-defence-minister-could-be-bad-news-for-halifax

Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.
Quote
Rumoured top pick for defence minister could be bad news for Halifax

ANDREA GUNN Ottawa Bureau
Published October 21, 2015 - 10:46pm
Last Updated October 21, 2015 - 10:55pm

Measures that former lieutenant-general and Liberal MP-elect Andrew Leslie outlined in his report on military transformation would be suicide for the Canadian navy if implemented, experts say.
 
The 2011 report was commissioned through the Harper government and authored by Leslie, now rumoured to be a top pick to become Canada’s new defence minister. The report outlines several measures for the Canadian Forces to streamline operations and save money by slashing bloated military bureaucracy, giving Canada’s military “more teeth and less tail.”
 
Full implementation of the report’s measures is part of the Liberal defence platform, a promise prime minister-designate Justin Trudeau recommitted to at a Halifax campaign stop in September.
 
But Ken Hansen, a former navy officer and a maritime security analyst at Dalhousie University in Halifax, said enacting the changes would turn the Royal Canadian Navy into a token force.

 
The measure that raises the most concern for Hansen, who has written extensively on the subject, advocates that the navy hand over control of its maintenance, engineering support and logistics to a central organization in Ottawa.
 
He said this would result in the closure of two fleet maintenance facilities that provide all in-house repairs and support for naval equipment. The work would be contracted out to civilian outfits.
 
The Fleet Maintenance Facility Cape Scott in Halifax is the largest military industrial complex in Canada. Cape Scott employs 1,200 people and provides engineering and maintenance services for the 18 vessels in the Canadian navy’s Atlantic fleet. The other facility, Fleet Maintenance Facility Cape Breton, is in Esquimalt, B.C. The facilities are designed to do running repairs to keep ships operational and mitigate the need for a large retrofit contract.
 
“Leslie wants them gone,” Hansen said. “… He believes that they’re an unnecessary industrial expense that should be outside the defence portfolio. The navy’s history shows categorically that is not the case. Without them, the navy cannot function.”
 
Aside from a loss of hundreds of jobs in Halifax alone, Hansen said contracting out ship maintenance to a civilian company, as done in other branches of the Forces, would belabour the process for minor repairs to the point of rendering the navy ineffective.
 
“The fleet in this country is small. If you have to send a ship away for major repair and overhaul for what’s effectively a minor issue, then you’re losing a disproportionately large percentage of your operational capability. If you have to (contract out) to Irving, Irving would say, ‘Let’s talk terms. Let’s get a contract in place. Let’s get the lawyers in here.’ In a (fleet maintenance facility), you don’t need any of that.
 
“I’ve been on ships that went into the ship repair unit for a repair job, and within 48 hours, we were headed back out to port again.”
 
This loss of readily available ships would remove all real reliable capability from the Canadian navy, Hansen said.
 
Colin Darlington, a retired navy commander and vice-president of the Royal United Services Institute of Nova Scotia, shared Hansen’s concerns.
 
“The closure of fleet maintenance facilities would mean a significant change in the way the Royal Canadian Navy is currently structured and would result in a significant degradation of its ability to carry out missions and support foreign policy as Canada currently requires,” said Darlington. “One could even say we would become very much more on a short leash and a localized force.”
 
He said the function of these facilities is often drastically underappreciated by those outside the navy. Their closure would mean the loss of decades of expertise and the inability of the navy to effectively oversee the major repairs that are contracted out to civilian shipbuilding companies.
 
“When you do contract out (repairs), often it’s the expertise in FMF that allows for smart contracting in that we can specify what we want done and validate it’s been done correctly.”
 
It would also mean the effective end of Canada’s submarine program, Darlington said, because no civilian outfits in this country now have the ability to service subs.
 
Although Hansen said he thinks Leslie is a shoo-in for the defence minister position, he added that Leslie’s pull in the Liberal caucus will likely lead to the total implementation of his report, regardless of who gets the portfolio.
 
Hansen said the government will be dogmatic about pursuing the measures, because it likely views the document as a way to bring change to a military in dire need of reform while mostly usurping responsibility if something goes awry.
 
“They believe this will be safe because the report originates from within the military. … If there’s a blowback or a negative outcome, they can turn and point and say, ‘They recommended it.’”
 
Taking on the report in full could also have implications more far-reaching than just the maintenance facility closures. Hansen said Leslie’s “cold-war force structure” reflected in the document puts far too much importance on the army as Canada’s centre of power.
 
Threats in the Arctic and far-western Pacific will require a navy-heavy military, something Hansen said should be explored by the new government by releasing a white paper to outline the goals of its defence strategy.
 
“Cold-war force structure is (not) going to be useful in the new security era. It’s blatantly biased and small-minded.”
 
For his part, he did commend the Liberal promise to axe the F-35 procurement in favour of more affordable fighter jets and redirect the savings to the navy. In his victory speech Monday night, Leslie lauded the commitment and described Canada’s navy as being in a state of crisis.
 
Neither the federal Liberal party nor Leslie could be reached for comment by deadline
« Last Edit: October 22, 2015, 09:48:45 by jollyjacktar »
I'm just like the CAF, I seem to have retention issues.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,832
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #48 on: October 22, 2015, 10:58:40 »
DND - Canada's catspaw.

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

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

It can use you and abuse you.

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

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

Buttons and bows for all and saluting anvils to be issued.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 101,080
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,815
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #49 on: October 22, 2015, 11:18:30 »
What forms my opinion:
- recently retired after 26 years in uniform
- overall specialized in Tactical systems
- bi-national planning group in CSprings
- surveillance officer at NATO AGSIO
- targeting staff officer at SHAPE  J2 ISTAR branch

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

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

Most European countries *are* falling behind.

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

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

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