• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian military faces collapse and a generation of rebuilding, says study

Spr.Earl

Army.ca Veteran
Inactive
Reaction score
2
Points
410
Canadian military faces collapse and a generation of rebuilding, says study
at 19:34 on December 2, 2003, EST.
JOHN WARD

OTTAWA (CP) - Years of penny-pinching have left the Canadian Forces on the brink of collapse and it could take an entire generation to recover, a bleak Queen‘s University study warns.

The document tells the incoming Paul Martin government that it is about to walk into a disaster, with a military that can‘t be used because of shortages of people and equipment. "The problem will rapidly disarm foreign policy as Canada repeatedly backs away from international commitments because it lacks adequate military forces," said the report, entitled Canada Without Armed Forces?, released Wednesday.

It says the problems can‘t be solved overnight, because it takes years to purchase major weapons systems and years to train combat-ready soldiers, sailors and flyers.

"There is not much Canadians can do to save this situation, at least not in the term of the next government or even the government after that," the report says. "The descending slope is too steep and it will take too long to turn it upwards for tomorrow‘s government to benefit from altered policies."

The new government can only start the recovery, but the report says the recovery has to start now if there is to be any hope of restoring the military.

The study was a collaboration between the School of Policy Studies at Queens and the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, an independent defence think-tank.

It outlines major problems hobbling the military, including rusting equipment, aging infrastructure and imbalance in the ranks.

For years, the brass tried to deal with government budget cuts by robbing Peter to pay Paul. Now Peter and Paul are both broke.

Capital budgets were raided to support operations. It was a case of paying for today by mortgaging the future, but the future is now here and there‘s no money to buy new transport planes, new vehicles and high-tech weapons.

The report estimates that capital needs over the next five years will fall $15 billion short of what‘s needed.

The air force is likely to lose the oldest half of its C-130 transport fleet, without replacements, while the navy will end up without replenishment ships or replacements for its big destroyers with their anti-aircraft missiles. The army will have problems replacing its heavy truck fleet, which is grinding toward the junkyard.

"The effect on CF operational capabilities will be the complete loss of logistics sealift, airlift and landlift," the paper says.

The ability to meet the modest requirements of the 1994 defence white paper and conduct modest overseas operations with the help of allies "will disappear within the immediate time-frame."

The paper noted that life-extension programs can refit ships and planes for a few extra years of service, but they add crippling maintenance and operations costs.

There‘s more bad news in the makeup of the Forces, the authors say.

Scrimping over the last decade, as defence spending was cut by 23 per cent, left recruitment at the whim of the budget process. In good years, the military would sign people up. In bad years, recruiting was ignored.

That has left serious imbalances in the ranks in terms of age and experience. Some technical trades are desperate for people and can‘t find them, while other specialities have a surplus.

The military has a personnel ceiling of 60,000, but that includes every last person in uniform. However, at any time, about 10,000 of those uniforms are people who can‘t be used - those on sick leave and retirement leave, those in training schools and every last raw recruit.
 
I read a published article in Canadian Defence Review Magazine earlier this year - I regret not purchasing the magazine, I read it in a Chapter‘s. In layman‘s terms, by 2010 the CF is going to be in a bad way. By 2017, we won‘t be able to continue, either the Air Force or the Navy won‘t be able to function and the Army will be taxed. It‘s a bleak picture and the thing of it is. Both the politicians and Command are aware of this.

A shame the population doesn‘t understand the gravity of the situation.
 
It is indeed unfortunate that our military is in such a sad state of affairs.
 
"Scrimping over the last decade, as defence spending was cut by 23 per cent, left recruitment at the whim of the budget process. In good years, the military would sign people up. In bad years, recruiting was ignored."

Looks like this is a bad year.
 
Follow Up:

What political party in Canada even supports having a military force? It is not the liberals, that‘s for sure.
 
I believe that the Canadian Alliance supports military funding, (and possibly even increased military funding :blotto: ) but I‘m not certain, anybody want to confirm?
 
From the Canadian Alliance‘s own Policy Manual:

Defence
We are committed to restoring tradition and pride in Canada’s military. We will protect our country’s sovereignty, uphold our international and alliance obligations, and ensure internal safety and security. To meet these responsibilities, we will fund, train and equip the Canadian Armed Forces to be combat capable to fulfil the multi-purpose role of the Army, Navy and Air Force. The number of Reserve personnel should be at least equal in number to the Regular force.


We will restore and maintain a Military Force that is appropriate to the needs of Canada as a modern democracy. We will introduce recruitment and promotion policies that support competency and exempt the Canadian Military from ethnic and gender quotas which negatively affect operational effectiveness. Our top priority will be to ensure the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces. We will require that all programs, acquisitions, and the command structure are cost effective. We will eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy, and decrease political interference in military affairs. We will equip all branches of Canadian military with modern operational hardware.

We will ensure better cooperation among Canada’s intelligence and security agencies to more effectively protect Canadians against internal and external security and economic threats in a changing and unstable global environment.
This is what they stand for. If you want to see specific policies (plans, which is kinda silly when you‘re not in power, but anyway), you‘ll have to look at their more recent announcements. I believe one of the things they were looking at in their "ghost" budget was a helicopter carrier for the Navy, and streamlining along the lines of the US marine corps...something that has been suggested by more than one military type. A small, competent force with teeth.
 
CBC
McCallum dismisses ‘doom and gloom‘ report on military
Last Updated Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:50:03
OTTAWA - Defence Minister John McCallum is dismissing a damaging report that claims Canada will become the first major power to disarm itself because the government continues to neglect its military.


Report says Canadian military needs $50 billion over next 15 years

"I find it difficult to square these (pronouncements) of doom and gloom with the actual achievements we‘ve had in recent years," McCallum said, speaking in London.

A Queen‘s University study titled Canada Without Armed Forces? predicts the "air force will likely disappear through 2008-2013 time frame and either the army or navy will disappear in the same time frame."

"Canada cannot help but become the first modern and major power to disarm itself," the report says, adding that if the military falls further into disrepair, in a few years Canada effectively will be disarmed.

The report says the Canadian military needs a cash infusion of $50 billion over the next 15 years to replace military equipment. The report recommends the defence budget be increased to $5 billion annually.

The report, produced by the university‘s defence management program, says the state of the Canadian Forces is at a "national crisis." Lack of funding will make Canada‘s major military equipment "operationally irrelevant" in five to 10 years, it says.

"Canada is heading for a long period when governments will be without effective military resources…for domestic defence and territorial surveillance," the report says.

Canada‘s foreign policies will be affected as it "repeatedly backs away from foreign commitments because it lacks adequate military forces," the report says.

Retired army officer Colonel Howard Marsh said 25,000 Canadian soldiers are eligible for early retirement. He said there are no replacements and training is years behind schedule.

Marsh also said the armed forces may not be able to respond to a natural disaster or terrorist attacks at home.

"We are facing the spectre of not having the capacity to respond to domestic emergencies," he said.
CBC webpage
A followup story..

The MND is not worried? The cutting of budget by 1/4 is an achievement?
Any generals in the crowd? please set the honourable minister right!
 
Well, the 2000 Liberal Party platform said

Canadians are proud of the accomplishments of the Canadian Forces in responding to emergencies at home and in fulfilling Peacekeeping amd Peacebuilding assignments around the world. We significantly increaced resources for the Forces in the 2000 budget to help them to this important work.

A new Liberal Government will continue to ensure that the Canadian Forces are properly equipped and prepared to respond to calls for help at home and abroad.
And according to all the reports, we all know how much crap that was. It kind of makes me wonder how much weight to put into the Alliance platform.
 
All govt‘s are the same once the get into power and anyone Col and up are just politicians in DEU‘s.
 
All governments are the same because the public doesn‘t hold them accountable. Democracy doesn‘t end with the vote. It begins with it.

But nobody gives a ****. They moan about how they‘re all the same, complain that they government should do something about all their problems....and stop voting.

It isn‘t the Liberals who have hurt the military, it‘s the Canadian people. It isn‘t the politicians who have failed us, it is our countrymen.

Politicians will do whatever the population asks for: they want to be elected again. But the population only asks for bread and circuses, and the politicians don‘t need the army to 1) maintain their position in this peaceful continent or 2) to ensure their continued popularity. Add the fact that 3) military is expensive, and you can clearly understand why our military is falling apart. Nobody gives a da/V\n.
 
There is, I think, another side to the statement that Gunnar just made.
People who come to Canada through Immigration these days quite often come from countries where the military are just a pack of thugs with guns. I had to go through this with the parents of my girlfriend. They were dead set convinced that the army here is the same as the "army" from their home country!
I don‘t think that the people coming here from other countries really respect Canada enough and are just bent on doing their own thing.
Teachers in the school system are another matter. If the "discussion" I had with another member is any indication the school system should really look very hard at the educators...The people who teach our kids that the army is "BAD"
We need to turn things around in a hurry!!
 
"They were dead set convinced that the army here is the same as the "army" from their home country!
"

That is the reason we immagrated to Canada from my birth place Ukraine. My parents did not want me to go into the Ukrainian army because it is a total joke (You were forced once you are 18).

We then went to Israel. Found out that joining the army is manditory there too. Left Israel and finnaly came to Canada.

Then I decide to join the Canadian Air Force, my parents were not that thrilled because we left Ukraine and Israel for that exact reason. However, they are kind of happy because they saved spending $50,000 for my college tuition.
 
Are you implying that the school system is teaching people that the army is bad. If so please elborate because I never experienced this when I went through the school system.
 
i just got out of school and its not that they say army(military in general) is bad, they look down apon it, i went to my principal the one day because i wanted to go on an advanced party leaving on a friday morning for an EX. so i came wiht like 2 weeks to spare and the man never met him in my life, seemed like an alright guy has this too say. "So your saying, to protect our country you have to leave in the morning instead of the evening? Thats Rubish what would it be like if i wanted to go fishing this weekend and i just took the morning off to get a quicker start on it, the school would be in chaos..."

My point im trying to say it may not be the school system but more the individuals running it...bunch of slack jawed yockles :p
 
I think it is sad to say that our governmet has completly given up on us....so in this case we just have to elect a new government,one that supports a Military. Every one knows, if a government wants international power a strong military will do alot to back them up... i think its time the people of Canada actually know about our forces, so they can try and be proud and let the government know that they want a military. :soldier: Liberal :salute: New Government :cdn:
 
Are things really as bad as the report makes out? Or are they overstating the case for effect?

I hope the situation isn‘t that bleak. If it is, I‘m minded of something Churchill once said about democracies -- that they never fix problems until those problems become emergencies.

I‘d hate to see Canada exposed to the type of emergency that would wake the general population to the need for a strong military.

:(

Jim
 
I dunno Jim, what would you call it? I‘ll start with what‘s going right now, here on the west coast.

We have a Destroyer which was basically mothballed due to inactivity, it was tied up for 3 years and canabalised for parts and personnel to maintain the remaing vessels on the east coast.

We purchased used submarines which should have never been purchased due to their condition. One had it‘s torpedoe tubes welded shut due to leaking and another has a keel which shows signs of an impact, although no record of such an incident has been reported. These things are lemons and so far, the one we have here on the west has been a drydock queen. ****ed things are diesels, so they can‘t go under the arctic ice, but the Admirals love to show them off, when they get get them working...

We have helicopters which are so far past there expiry date, it‘s sickening. The cost in terms of maintenance to keep them going is ridiculous and there is no replacement in sight. I‘m a pilot and I would not want to fly one. But if it was my assigned craft, so be it.

We have transport aircraft that are due to be retired, nothing heavy, nothing long range. We ship personnel and equipment all over the world and usually we have to make arrangements with other nations aircraft to assist us. Replacement aircraft will most likely be comparable to that which exists.

We are mothballing our remaining tanks and replacing them with an AFV which has many questions surrounding it for a cost which seems high (as with everything we acquire due to our selection process which is rife with political interference). The number of replacements is basically half that of the tanks.

We‘re mothballing our self propelled artillery.

Our heavy duty trucks are coming up for replacement, a life extension program is most likely.

We have recruits sitting on bases awaiting training as the system wasn‘t designed to handle the numbers that the recruiting drive has provided, so the system itself is playing catch up while many experienced soldiers are due to retire over the next few years.

We‘ll be extending the life of our jet‘s and maritime patrol aircraft well into the next decade. Although there is talk of replacing the maritime aircraft at some point.

Bases have shut down over the past decade, and just for fun, the liberals have reduced the percentage of the nations GDP from 2.0% in 1990 to 1.2% as of 2001:

Conventional arms transfers (1990 prices) - Imports (US$ millions), 1992 - $344,000,000US

Conventional arms transfers (1990 prices) - Imports (US$ millions), 2002 - $359,000,000US

Conventional arms (1990 prices) - Exports (US$ million), 2002- $318,000,000US

Conventional arms transfers (1990 prices) - Exports share (%), 1998-2002 - 0.8%

From the UN Human Development Report 2003
http://www.undp.org/hdr2003/indicator/cty_f_CAN.html

I dunno Jim. What would you call it? Our MND says that he‘s proud of the accomplishments of the CF. So he bloody well should be! What these people have had to do with what little they have, it‘s a bloody outrage. Only a political lackey would say such a remarkably self-serving statement.

I‘d be ashamed to show my bloody face on a base. Unfortunately, I‘m not certain politicians understand words like: duty, honour, shame, justice, sacrifice or work.

They do understand: polls, cutbacks, favours, dividends, shareholders, committees, appointments, rewards, profit, gain, survival, interviews, fact finding missions, parties, shows, ceremonies, scandal, inappropriate conduct, penalty, televised forgiveness, sound bites, arrogance, elitism, narcissim, lying, dishonour...

What‘re your thoughts Jim?
 
Enzo,

That sounds bad, for sure.

I‘ve seen any number of ideas floated on this forum relating to all the problems you mention.

Yet, the problem with laundry lists of problems is that they usually describe symptoms. Your last few paragraphs get closer to the real issue.

In the 70s, the US Army reached a low point in terms of effectiveness and combat readiness. Morale was low, weapons systems obsolete, etc.

For about a decade the only thing that kept the Army together was the solid professionalism of a core of officers and NCOs. Canada certainly has such a core to build from.

In the US, administrations, starting with Carter, gradually made the commitments needed to bring the Army (and other branches) up to speed. The most important steps taken early-on had to do with properly funding programs of development and stepping up training.

So the real problem is political. Is there any possibility of political change?

Jim
 
Back
Top