Canada to Spend $5.0Bil on AEW Aircraft (Saab Globaleye)

[brihard]

By contrast, even a single NASAMS battery, armed with AIM-120 AMRAAMs would influence a bubble with a 50 km radius (750 to 800 km2). The NASAMS battery in Washington DC is manned by a few dozen soldiers. It is not a complete defence but it is a noteworthy, and likely welcome, addition to local defences.

It moves the capabillities of a frigate inland.

I’ll admit NASAMS did not really enter my reckoning when you asked how often the Canadian army has seized ground. But you’ve set up a straw man; nobody here is arguing the comparative bubbles in which the air, sea, and land domains tend to influence and break shit. I think @PuckChaser was being a bit generous when he said you were comparing apples to watermelons. It’s not clear what point you’re trying to make. Obviously the nature and scale of battlespaces are manifestly different.

 

[Kirkhill]

Afghanistan, Bosnia, Cyprus, Golan Heights, like 5 different African UN missions, Latvia, Europe (UNIFIER), a bunch of SOF missions and probably a few more I dont have off the top of my head.

Anytime a land force is on the ground it holds terrain. Naval and Air power have great influence but only for fleeting (no pun intended) moments of time. Different tools for different jobs and there shouldn't be a bun fight over what's more important. Theres plenty of money to go around.

There may be lots of money to go around, but there aren't lots of people. And an Army is people first and foremost. The argument is always given that the issue is boots on the ground. Fair enough. But I can only get two boots on a single person.

If that person is there to confront another person great. That means that in a city of 100,000 locals I need 100,000 pairs of boots to achieve parity

Alternately I can put two women in a LAV with an RCH-155 and influence the actions of all 100,000 locals. Even if fleetingly.

The influence lasts as long as that LAV and its cannon are in the area. Just as the influence of a frigate or flight of F18s lasts as long as it can remain in the area.

 

[FJAG]

That is true.

How many times has the Canadian Government seen fit to commit the Canadian Army to seizing (as opposed to holding) land in the last 160 years? And how long have they employed an active territorial defence? In my view they have committed a few thousand for 20 years or so in Germany with 4 CMBG (the longest engagement)

That spanned closer to 40 years from the 1950s to the 1990.

and hundreds of thousands for 4 or 5 years twice (at great political cost and never doing that again).

Other countries have armies designed to secure their home turf from their neighbours. We have been clear that we have no such need, at least since 1940.

We had a fairly robust air defence in the 1950s and 60s until the "bomber threat" was eclipsed by ICBMs where a cost-effective technological defence was unavailable.

Meanwhile, we have been able to show the flag with ships and squadrons and offer to launch American bombs and missiles from them if necessary. We didn't even need munitions of our own.

I'm not sure what the point is here other than some governments commitment to a domestic defence industry caved in to cheaper solutions.

A few ops over a couple years in Kandahar. Small areas barely larger than points on a map, with bubbles of control fading to contestability fading further to influence as you radiate out. But I wouldn’t say any of the offensive ops resulted in ‘control’ larger than say a single village around a fob, and the roads between those FOBs were still a contested nuisance.

The basic strategy behind counter-insurgency operations is still relatively sound where military forces take terrain and civilian or paramilitary police forces and a government judiciary hold and administer it. We did, often repeatedly, successfully seize and control terrain. Unfortunately, that last element never became workable in the environment for a variety of reasons.

By contrast, even a single NASAMS battery, armed with AIM-120 AMRAAMs would influence a bubble with a 50 km radius (750 to 800 km2). The NASAMS battery in Washington DC is manned by a few dozen soldiers. It is not a complete defence but it is a noteworthy, and likely welcome, addition to local defences.

It moves the capabillities of a frigate inland.

Do you not see the futility of comparing a weapon system that has an effect in only one domain (here air) with those that operate in a totally different one (here land) and yet a third that operates in two (sea and air albeit transiently)? War - or national security - is not an either or game.

There may be lots of money to go around, but there aren't lots of people. And an Army is people first and foremost. The argument is always given that the issue is boots on the ground. Fair enough. But I can only get two boots on a single person.

If that person is there to confront another person great. That means that in a city of 100,000 locals I need 100,000 pairs of boots to achieve parity

Alternately I can put two women in a LAV with an RCH-155 and influence the actions of all 100,000 locals. Even if fleetingly.

The influence lasts as long as that LAV and its cannon are in the area. Just as the influence of a frigate or flight of F18s lasts as long as it can remain in the area.

I didn't even want to address this one but I just can't leave well enough alone.

Your math sucks and shows nothing. At its most basic you fail to even remotely address the sustainment chain from economy through factory through recruiting and training system to deployment. People litter this chain in ever varying numbers so your attempt to reduce things to numbers of people, rather than the potential of a given threat or set of threats versus a nation's ability and commitment to target and successfully resist or defeat that threat, has zero value.

 

[Kirkhill]

I’ll admit NASAMS did not really enter my reckoning when you asked how often the Canadian army has seized ground. But you’ve set up a straw man; nobody here is arguing the comparative bubbles in which the air, sea, and land domains tend to influence and break shit. I think @PuckChaser was being a bit generous when he said you were comparing apples to watermelons. It’s not clear what point you’re trying to make. Obviously the nature and scale of battlespaces are manifestly different.

From the politician's standpoint influence takes many shapes and forms. Often it is enough to show up and show willing. From the stand point of the person being assisted, any assistance is gratefully received but some forms of assistance are more useful than others.

In my view most of our potential allies are not short of boots on the ground. We, as Canadians, do lack boots on the ground, both currently serving and potential. On they other hand our allies, a lot of them, are short of the ready cash necessary to supply the technical instruments that reduce the need for boots on the ground and allow them to continue to contribute to their local national economies with civilian employment.

We, on the other hand, Canadians, do not lack for wealth. We are stingy, not poor. Two different things. We have the means to buy the technical tools that can buy influence without having to push people overseas.

And as the current evolution/revolution progresses it is not just boots that are being impacted.

Aircraft carriers.

Aircraft carriers exist to move aircraft to the enemy.
Aircraft exist to carry bombs to the enemy.
The most common weight of bomb carried is the 500 lb Mk82.
Large bombs were prized because precision was poor.

Now small warheads are flying through windows under their own power after being launched from transcontinental distances with nary a pilot in sight, let alone squadrons of pilots and mechanics, thousands of crew in carriers and escorts (there solely to defend the thousands in the carrier).

Ukraine is influencing events in Moscow with 2000 km flying machines with payloads of 20 to 50 kg (50 to 100 lb). Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis have achieved similar effects with home made stovepipe rockets and radioshack planes.

....

Influence comes in many forms.

And I can cite many instances where boots landed on the ground and the survivors were forced to limp away.

 

[Kirkhill]

I will freely admit that all my arguments fail when we stop talking about expeditions and cabinet wars and start considering national defence of our homeland.

But we have no enemies.

So I am told.