little jim said:
I think this is the crux of the Canadian issue. It is easy to train dudes to jump out of an airplane in order to get to work. Its the support that we lack and where the details lie.
Unless Canada has a defined requirement to have an Parachute capabiltiy in the conventional army then there is no point to developing the specialist capability in the supporting arms or the RCAF.
The former CDS did back-peddle a bit when he commited to a parachute capable bn in Trenton - he later revised he statement to have a SAR bent for operations in the North.
A former RSM once told the assembled officers of 3VP that it would be a huge mistake for the Army to get rid of the jump companies (and sprinkling of berets in the support arms). His logic was that it gave troops something to strive towards. Without a requirement this is probably the only current reason to continue with the PPF course based on fiscal limitations.
In my opinion it is essential that we keep the current jump companies spread out amongst the brigades; based on that soldiers want something to strive for but frequently the 'better half' gets a vote when it comes to living in Edmonton or Petawawa. If we start specializing too much we become a bit more american; I cringe if we end up in a situation where 1 CMBG becomes the heavy brigade and 2 CMBG the light brigade - what will that do for the morale across the Army? Or do we make 2 CMBG home of all the 3rd battalions and start spreading the love around to 1 and 5 (SLT could be an issue).
Sorry for the ramble. Situation no change I guess.
I think the idea that soldiers need something to strive for is a weak argument for maintaining a jump capability. It is an argument that is based purely on emotion and nostalgia and not on operational necessity and doctrine.
As for specialization, I really don't see a problem with it as long as it serves a specific purpose. I see your reference to the Americans and how you do not want to become like them little jim. I hesitate to compare us to the American's like so many because we are so much smaller then they are. fact is we are kind of an anamoly in that we are one of the few armies that don't specialize our forces. Compare us to lets say France, the UK, Italy, Spain, Australia, the Dutch, Germany, etc... and all of these nations specialize their forces. More interesting is the Dutch and the Australians who both are very similar to us yet they maintain specialist capabilities within their armed forces.
The Australians for instance have 1 Heavy Bde, 1 Medium Bde and 1 Light Bde. Within their Light Bde they maintain an amphibious assault Bn, a parachute Bn (which they are considering doing away with) and a light infantry Bn. This means they can force generate airborne and amphibious task forces because in some cases deploying a mechanized force might not be suitable, especially if it is an initial entry force. It is also an acknowledgement by them that they don't have the proper amount of vehicles to fully equip three brigades which is something that we can also not do.
The Dutch also maintain a light force with their 11th Air-mobile Bde and they can be deployed within 7 to 20 days of being called out not too mention the Dutch also maintain the Dutch Marine Corps which is also rapidly deployable.
Now does Canada need these specialized forces? Maybe not because we aren't a regional power like Australia is and we don't have former colonial interests like the Dutch do but I would ask a question of are we getting the most bang for our buck? A lot of things we use CSOR for other countries will use Airborne or Amphibious forces for. On top of this we have three infantry battalions full of guys that costa substantial amount of money in salaries and training but really don't offer a whole lot in terms of power projection to the army. So really the whole point of determining whether we need to specialize our force or continue maintain what we refer to as a "general purpose combat capability" should hinge on:
1. Do we offer the government enough solutions; and
2. Are we being fiscally responsible with our force structure or is their a better way to achieve economy of effort and optimize our forces to achieve more bang for our buck?
