CAN Enhanced (Permanent?) Fwd Presence in Latvia

[CBH99]

Return of the RCAF to europe, lets say a squadron in France, and Squadron in either Norway or Sweden

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but what benefit would that be to the CAF or the Government of Canada?

(Other than the obvious real world experience the pilots & crews would get, and quite possibly boost recruiting.)


...

We already have pretty solid relations with Latvia, as well as all of the countries that ha e trusted us to lead and take care of their forces under our command.

Just between the UK, USAF, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Finland, Norway, and France - I imagine the Russians would be hard pressed to match squadron numbers & aircraft. And that's just if each country deployed a squadron or two each (under a true Article 5 scenario, they'd deploy even more I imagine)

That isn't even including the eastern European countries. (I have no idea what their air capabilities are, so I'll leave them out for now.)

...

Would it look good on us as a country to have a squadron deployed to Latvia to go along with our battlegroup? Probabiy

But it would cost money. And personally I believe that money should go towards buying more logistics trucks & armoured vehicles, and buying a lot more spare parts so we aren't cannibalizing vehicles here to keep the ones over there running

 

[daftandbarmy]

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but what benefit would that be to the CAF or the Government of Canada?

(Other than the obvious real world experience the pilots & crews would get, and quite possibly boost recruiting.)


...

We already have pretty solid relations with Latvia, as well as all of the countries that ha e trusted us to lead and take care of their forces under our command.

Just between the UK, USAF, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Finland, Norway, and France - I imagine the Russians would be hard pressed to match squadron numbers & aircraft. And that's just if each country deployed a squadron or two each (under a true Article 5 scenario, they'd deploy even more I imagine)

That isn't even including the eastern European countries. (I have no idea what their air capabilities are, so I'll leave them out for now.)

...

Would it look good on us as a country to have a squadron deployed to Latvia to go along with our battlegroup? Probabiy

But it would cost money. And personally I believe that money should go towards buying more logistics trucks & armoured vehicles, and buying a lot more spare parts so we aren't cannibalizing vehicles here to keep the ones over there running

To show Europe, and Russia and Canadians, that we're committed to NATO and not just tourists?

 

[MilEME09]

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but what benefit would that be to the CAF or the Government of Canada?

(Other than the obvious real world experience the pilots & crews would get, and quite possibly boost recruiting.)


...

We already have pretty solid relations with Latvia, as well as all of the countries that ha e trusted us to lead and take care of their forces under our command.

Just between the UK, USAF, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Finland, Norway, and France - I imagine the Russians would be hard pressed to match squadron numbers & aircraft. And that's just if each country deployed a squadron or two each (under a true Article 5 scenario, they'd deploy even more I imagine)

That isn't even including the eastern European countries. (I have no idea what their air capabilities are, so I'll leave them out for now.)

...

Would it look good on us as a country to have a squadron deployed to Latvia to go along with our battlegroup? Probabiy

But it would cost money. And personally I believe that money should go towards buying more logistics trucks & armoured vehicles, and buying a lot more spare parts so we aren't cannibalizing vehicles here to keep the ones over there running

If we think we are going to be in a war by the end of the decade like everyone is saying. Starting interoperability asap is a good thing, as well as getting bases we know we can fly out of, with SOPs etc set up already only help us long term. Having a squadron in France would give more operational opportunities for Quebec based units, and I suggest Sweden because A its one of the newest NATO members, B its a stones throw to latvia, a C increased cooperation with Sweden only benefits us in the arctic.

 

[CBH99]

If we think we are going to be in a war by the end of the decade like everyone is saying. Starting interoperability asap is a good thing, as well as getting bases we know we can fly out of, with SOPs etc set up already only help us long term. Having a squadron in France would give more operational opportunities for Quebec based units, and I suggest Sweden because A its one of the newest NATO members, B its a stones throw to latvia, a C increased cooperation with Sweden only benefits us in the arctic.

Boom!

I got nothin'...absolutely nothin'...to remotely disagree with.


Well done good sir!

 

[Good2Golf]

Having a squadron in France would give more operational opportunities for Quebec based units…

(Still slightly o/t) A secondary but not insignificant factor. IMO, primary factor is closer integration with a big Euro player.

I’d put all our future Rafale fleet in YBG anyway, leaving the F-35s in YOD (and Det in SWE), so having a 433e Det in France down in Istres makes sense.

 

[dapaterson]

If we're going to collaborate with European allies, why not focus on important capabilities and get another half dozen MRTT+ (new model based on the A330-800) based in France instead?

 

[Good2Golf]

I’d be up for that. I’d also consider basing our euro F-35s in the Netherlands, vice Sweden. Canada and the Ntheroands have very close ties ne the infra for F-35 is already there, as well as, dare I mention it, logistical and technical economies of scale collaborating with the KLu.

 

[GR66]

I’d be up for that. I’d also consider basing our euro F-35s in the Netherlands, vice Sweden. Canada and the Ntheroands have very close ties ne the infra for F-35 is already there, as well as, dare I mention it, logistical and technical economies of scale collaborating with the KLu.

If you're going to have F-35's in Europe then Denmark would be the logical choice to my mind. They are also an F-35 user. They contribute a rotating Mechanized Battalion to our Multinational Brigade in Latvia which also falls under the Danish-led NATO Multinational Division North. It's also closer to Latvia than the Netherlands but still a relatively safe distance from Kaliningrad.

 

[OldSolduer]

I've heard that also.

Was chatting with 2 guys I work with at the bar who are both 1VP guys - not sure when they went but they both enthusiastically said they hated the deployment.

...

Apparently a lot of 'confined to barracks' stretched periods not as a punishment, but rather a preventative measure.

The CoC would lecture the troops on how dangerous the situation was & how close things are to kicking off to keep the troops vigilant - yet would fly their immediate families out to Latvia to live with them.

And "something" that seems to have a lot of troops coming back just enraged in a way that they are struggling to deal with - like even to the troops themselves the rage seems hard to justify or explain. The CAF reddit pages even have a few guys who have reached out since returning...

Chain of Command behaving like Comissars.

Da Tovarish?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Chain of Command behaving like Comissars.

Da Tovarish?

I think coming off a deployment history like Afg, Impact and the Balkans, Latvia is a little boring and its leaving too much time for good idea fairy's...

Just my uneducated hunch.

 

[Good2Golf]

If you're going to have F-35's in Europe then Denmark would be the logical choice to my mind. They are also an F-35 user. They contribute a rotating Mechanized Battalion to our Multinational Brigade in Latvia which also falls under the Danish-led NATO Multinational Division North. It's also closer to Latvia than the Netherlands but still a relatively safe distance from Kaliningrad.

My view if for the longer term, not making a strategic/political decision based in an operational deployment. If Denmark is considered as an RCAF F-35 detachment/squadron location, it should be more for reasons such as solidarity with a fellow Arctic nation, particularly one that is also feeling the extant (and likely insuring) pressures of a beligerante superpower.

 

[CBH99]

(Still slightly o/t) A secondary but not insignificant factor. IMO, primary factor is closer integration with a big Euro player.

I’d put all our future Rafale fleet in YBG anyway, leaving the F-35s in YOD (and Det in SWE), so having a 433e Det in France down in Istres makes sense.

Everybody catch that??

I don't speak air force...all I got was we're buying Rafales now, and something about France making sense??



Not a solid copy. Negative on the solid copy...

 

[Good2Golf]

So, 5 by 5 by zero?

No, you tracked it pretty well CBH99. ‘Hypothetically’ of course.

 

[CBH99]

If we're going to collaborate with European allies, why not focus on important capabilities and get another half dozen MRTT+ (new model based on the A330-800) based in France instead?

We're already expanding that capacity exponentially, replacing 4 in service a/c with 9.

Not only are we expanding the number of airframes, but each 330MRTT can act as a refueller vs the 2 Polaris a/c we have equipped for that mission now.

That's literally a 4x expansion + another a/c

I'll be thrilled if we can generate enough aircrews to man the 9 we have on order. Let's get that crossed off the list before we go ahead and buy 6 more!


(I love the idea though. It's a great way to be a much more helpful and useful ally, while not having to spend a ton more. Even if we deploy 3 to continental Europe, that still leaves 6 aircraft here which is one more airframe than we've ever had anyway - and that's without the extra order! So either way we're looking a lot better than we historically have!)

 

[dapaterson]

We are growing the fighter fleet. Adding ISR (P8) that will drink from the MRTT. Adding UAS that will do AAR. Adding AEC that will AAR. Adding AAR to the VIP / multirole flight capability.

Plus need more air transport capability.

Nine MRTT likely won't be enough to support all those lines of task, let alone deploying a third of them to Europe.

 

[GR66]

My view if for the longer term, not making a strategic/political decision based in an operational deployment. If Denmark is considered as an RCAF F-35 detachment/squadron location, it should be more for reasons such as solidarity with a fellow Arctic nation, particularly one that is also feeling the extant (and likely insuring) pressures of a beligerante superpower.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. You said you'd pick the Netherlands over Sweden for our F-35 deployment. Certainly Sweden is more in direct threat from Russia than the Netherlands and I've not heard of the Netherlands being called an Arctic power.

Denmark however controls access to the Baltic Sea and with Greenland being part of the Kingdom of Denmark I'd suggest they are the Arctic nation with which we have the most important military ties.

 

[Good2Golf]

I'm not sure where you're going with this. You said you'd pick the Netherlands over Sweden for our F-35 deployment. Certainly Sweden is more in direct threat from Russia than the Netherlands and I've not heard of the Netherlands being called an Arctic power.

Denmark however controls access to the Baltic Sea and with Greenland being part of the Kingdom of Denmark I'd suggest they are the Arctic nation with which we have the most important military ties.

Are you trying to plus up the Baltic specifically, or reinforce the wider European political-strategic space? The answer guides where you place your Strat-pol pieces, as opposed to thinking at the Operstions-Tactical level.

 

[GR66]

Are you trying to plus up the Baltic specifically, or reinforce the wider European political-strategic space? The answer guides where you place your Strat-pol pieces, as opposed to thinking at the Operstions-Tactical level.

I'm just trying to understand your proposal of the Netherlands for a Canadian F-35 base over Denmark. I get the historical connection between the Netherlands and Canada but to my mind the current logic points to Denmark.

• Denmark currently has rotational military forces serving in the Canadian-led Multinational Brigade in Latvia
• That Canadian Brigade falls under NATO Multinational Division North which is Danish-led
• Latvia is a Baltic State and if we wish to send in heavy re-supply in advance of a conflict with Russia then our ships will have to transit the Baltic with the entrance to that body of water being controlled by Denmark.
• Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark and is arguably the most important Arctic territory to our own Northern defence as the Eastern entrances to the NWP (and potential shipping routes out of Hudson Bay) all pass between Canada and Greenland.

So I'd say that closer cooperation with Denmark provides greater strategic, political, operational and tactical advantages to Canada both in terms of European AND North American defence than does a closer relationship with the Netherlands.

 

[Good2Golf]

All good. Each has their own perspectives.

So I'd say that closer cooperation with Denmark provides greater strategic, political, operational and tactical advantages to Canada both in terms of European AND North American defence than does a closer relationship with the Netherlands.

I would agree with you about operational and tactical advantage in the short-term for Denmark.

Having worked with NATO a fair bit over the last 30 years or so, I’d still put more consideration to proximity to Europe’s major arena (NLD, which is proximal to NATO HQ in Brussels and France and Germany) than focusing so tightly on the Baltic region and Denmark specifically.

 

[Kirkhill]

All good. Each has their own perspectives.



I would agree with you about operational and tactical advantage in the short-term for Denmark.

Having worked with NATO a fair bit over the last 30 years or so, I’d still put more consideration to proximity to Europe’s major arena (NLD, which is proximal to NATO HQ in Brussels and France and Germany) than focusing so tightly on the Baltic region and Denmark specifically.

20-odd years ago I left my hotel in Copenhagen at about 10 O'clock on a Saturday morning. I drove across the new Storebaelt bridge to Jutland and down past Flensburg and Hamburg to Muenchen. I crossed into the Netherlands at Venlo by about 2 O'Clock. By 7 O'Ciock I had crossed the Netherlands and was ensconced in my hotel at the docks in Antwerp.

Sunday mornining I drove from Antwerp, past Brugge, Calais and Dieppe and stopped off at Vimy for lunch. By tea time I was back in Denmark visiting a colleague at Kolding on the German border. Monday morning we were both in the office in Copenhagen at 9 O'Clock.

Netherlands, Denmark. Potayto, Potahto.

My personal preference is Denmark. They already have some nice airfields that might need a bit of refurbishing.