Military Budget predictions

[Journeyman]

Interesting article.....absolutely nothing new, but interesting nonetheless. I can't help but feel Harper et al are starting to get a bit miffed (I believe that's the correct Political Studies term  ) that National Defence continues to garner headlines, when it has been repeatedly stated that the military is not one of their policy pillars.

I would, however, like to nit-pick with U Calgary's Rob Huebert's statement that "the military sees its role as mainly conducting overseas operations such as in Afghanistan." I suspect it would be more accurate to say that the military is focused upon its current priority deployment, which is Afghanistan. It sees its role as being capable of responding to whatever National Security, or military-related Foreign Policy, demands the elected government makes upon it. While those demands often require expeditionary capabilities, that is not the CF's raison d'être. A Liberal government chose Afghanistan; the minority Conservative government reaffirmed the mission's continuance; the CF merely implement's the government's decision.

Oh, and I did like the almost throw-away line about "A defence think-tank last week released figures that Canada's commitment to Afghanistan...." That ******** went into no more detail, or even bothering to name the Institute, indicates an acceptance that their figures are dubious at best. Of course, referring to any group whose byline is "...retooling citizen movements for democratic social change in an age of corporate-driven globalization," as a defence think-tank, seems a bit of a stretch as well.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Edward Campbell: There are still those pesky regular battalions promised for Bagotville and Trenton.  The Coast Guard badly needs new icebreakers; these would be fine for sovereignty patrols in the Arctic.
CCG vessels already act as platforms for armed RCMP or Fisheries officers when required.  Do the same in the Arctic if/when necessary.

Meanwhile the reporter, a journalist, manages to include a couple of gratuitous jabs at the Afstan mission.

The army also has concerns about the Conservatives' plan to station troops in Goose Bay. The army is focused entirely on its ongoing mission in Afghanistan and there are questions about where troops for new army units at Goose Bay and other locations would come from...

I wonder what the mission in Goose Bay might be.

And a silly Afstan vs. Arctic reference:

...University of Calgary defence analyst Rob Huebert said...Mr. O'Connor is going to "have a huge battle on his hands" in moving forward significant parts of the government's Arctic agenda, particularly with the Afghanistan mission scheduled to continue until 2009...

Journeyman: a journalist is utterly deceptive when he describes the Polaris Institute as a

defence think-tank

  It is no such thing.  Here is its motto:

..retooling citizen movements for democratic social change in an age of corporate-driven globalization.

http://www.polarisinstitute.org/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Journeyman]

Journeyman: a journalist is utterly deceptive when he describes the Polaris Institute.....

I know. It was my intent to deny them any additional, undeserved advertising....

 

[a_majoor]

Journalists, parlimentarians and our own defence establishment should probably be focusing much more on the organizational and institutional bottlenecks and roadblocks within DND which make getting anything from new boots to new icebreakers such a tedious and expensive proposition than the quantitative counting of dollars and cents.

After fixing the black hole of administrivia, ordering prioraties and maybe splitting off several projects (i.e. large icebreakers could be a Coast Guard item, we would co pay for a large helicopter deck and perhaps some below deck accomodations space for embarked troops when required) should come next. A defence white paper is almost certainly in order, and a well reserched and written white paper would almost certainly put paid to some of the more bone headed ideas like battalions stationed in the middle of nowhere.

Without clearing the institutional and organizational bottlenecks, I would say that no amount of money added to the budget would never solve our problems, no matter how much or little is added.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Although I understand the temptation to limit investment in Arctic assets due to needs in other areas, I think IF we're really going to push for real control of an area we deem as sovereign, and no one else accepts, we need to have more than an ad-hoc plan and constabulary force.  As I've said before we need to announce "the rules" of operating in our sovereign ocean and then have the assets to escort conveys through that ocean. 

And with that in mind, the clock is ticking - the planet is getting warmer very quickly and unless we get more proactive we're going to have a large number of unsafe foreign-flagged ships operating in ways we don't agree with and they will have set precedents that will be incredibly hard to undo.

That being said, although others have argued the point due to unionized nature of the Coast Guard, I think strategically my first step remains bringing the Coast Guard under a military chain of command.  My bottom line is that we need to have one team working on domestic ocean surveillance, feeding information to one command centre, with one master procurement plan. 


Matthew. 

 

[Journeyman]

...focusing much more on the organizational and institutional bottlenecks and roadblocks within DND which make getting anything from new boots to new icebreakers such a tedious and expensive proposition

You mean like the untendered, $101+ million acquisition of two executive model CL-604 Challengers for the use of Chrétien's cabinet? Apparently the bottlenecks can be removed.

....we need to have more than an ad-hoc plan and constabulary force.

I agree. It became ludicrous that we ended up swapping flags on Hans Island with the Danes - - a country that in 1940, surrendered to a telegram.

I think strategically my first step remains bringing the Coast Guard under a military chain of command.  My bottom line is that we need to have one team working on domestic ocean surveillance, feeding information to one command centre, with one master procurement plan. 

Here, however, I disagree. The roles of the Navy and Coast Guard are, and ought to remain, distinct. While maintaining integrated maritime situational awareness is absolutely necessary, I don't think creating an even larger bureaucracy would benefit anyone (except bureaucrats, naturally)

 

[MarkOttawa]

Journeyman: Regarding integrated maritime surveillance, see: "Keeping an eye on all the ships at sea" (May 6)
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1146865814587

Excerpt:
'...
And a nondescript office building at Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt promises to be the new front line for the decades-old defence alliance that once protected the continent from the threat of Soviet bombers. This building houses a marine security operations centre, one of two in Canada...

Each weekday morning, representatives from National Defence, Transport Canada, the RCMP, the CBSA, the Coast Guard and the fisheries department gather at the operations centre to discuss the possible threats...

Another team does the same job in Halifax for the Atlantic Ocean and eastern Arctic. At any given time, the two centres are monitoring some 1,000 ships of all sizes.

(A third centre, overseen by the RCMP and likely to be built somewhere in the Niagara Region, will keep vigil over the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway, which were actually flagged by the Senate defence committee as having the "greatest potential for terrorist activities.")..'

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Jungle]

... I don't think creating an even larger bureaucracy would benefit anyone (except bureaucrats, naturally)

Good point; and like I read before somewhere:

Bureaucracy grows to satisfy the needs of the growing bureaucracy

I believe the CF are very much a victim of this...

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I agree. It became ludicrous that we ended up swapping flags on Hans Island with the Danes - - a country that in 1940, surrendered to a telegram.
Here, however, I disagree. The roles of the Navy and Coast Guard are, and ought to remain, distinct. While maintaining integrated maritime situational awareness is absolutely necessary, I don't think creating an even larger bureaucracy would benefit anyone (except bureaucrats, naturally)

Have you looked at the Australian "Coastwatch" model?

http://orbat.com/site/air_orbats/orbats/other/australia_coastwatch.pdf#search='coastwatch%20australia'


M. 

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm afraid I am with Matt on this.

A presence in the north is needed.

I grant that Edward is correct that only a constabulary force is needed in peace time a constabulary force is the PRIMARY need in peace time.  The Mounties are a constabulary force.  It seems reasonable that having them do search and seizure is a wise move.

The Coast Guard is not a constabulary force although some members have constabulary powers to enforce the Fisheries Act.  The Coast Guard themselves however apparently do not see themselves as chasing down perpetrators.  At 15 knots they would be hard pressed in any event.

Perhaps having Mounties operating in Mountie crewed boats/hovercraft/helicopters launched from Coast Guard vessels might serve.

However Edward and others also state that the constabulary needs to be backed by heavy weapons,  that the heavy weapons should be in the hands of the CF (in particular the Navy in this case unless we are contemplating arming the Mounties with 76mm Oto's).  I agree with all of that.

My question is when will you permit the building of Navy ships that can navigate the ice and carry a heavy enough weapon to back up the Mounties?

 

[warrickdll]

Although I understand the temptation to limit investment in Arctic assets due to needs in other areas, I think IF we're really going to push for real control of an area we deem as sovereign, and no one else accepts, we need to have more than an ad-hoc plan and constabulary force. 
...

I am also in agreement that arctic sovereignty is an item that must be addressed now rather than later.

While the interested parties (CF, CCG, RCMP, CBSA, DFO, etc) all require the necessary resources to pursue and coordinate their slices of the sovereignty pie, I would also state that only the CF should have the means and mandate to confront a militarily armed opponent.

The CF should also be capable of at least confronting any opponent regardless of seasonal/geographic considerations. So I would inverse the following proposition:

...After fixing the black hole of administrivia, ordering prioraties and maybe splitting off several projects (i.e. large icebreakers could be a Coast Guard item, we would co pay for a large helicopter deck and perhaps some below deck accomodations space for embarked troops when required) should come next....

And instead advocate for Navy icebreakers which other agencies could either co-pay in advance, or purchase passage upon - as I see less benefit in having CCG vessels capable of going where the Navy cannot.



How committed is the government in having new units stationed in Bagotville, Trenton, Goose Bay, and Comox? What would be their exact nature? Will current units be expanded or at least brought up to strength? Where will the reserves receive their increase? How quickly?

The early fifties presented similar problems for Canada: Korea, military reinvestment, and an immediate troop requirement (NATO). Though the situation was more severe then, the same effort and solutions could be reapplied. If it could be accomplished over 50 years, maybe it can be accomplished today.

 

[Michael OLeary]

My question is when will you permit the building of Navy ships that can navigate the ice and carry a heavy enough weapon to back up the Mounties?

While the interested parties (CF, CCG, RCMP, CBSA, DFO, etc) all require the necessary resources to pursue and coordinate their slices of the sovereignty pie, I would also state that only the CF should have the means and mandate to confront a militarily armed opponent.

Against what threat?  Because that will determine what "means" will be necessary?

 

[warrickdll]

...
Against what threat?  Because that will determine what "means" will be necessary?

Granted, now, limited. On all coasts you are looking at the ability to stop or seize a belligerently crewed merchant vessel, which would probably only require a small/medium sized deck gun. Also, if you are going to say you do not want foreign submarines in your waters, you need to have at least some sort of ASW capability (regardless of your real intent to use it).

But what is really missing is the simple naval capability of bringing any weapons systems (or troops) into arctic waters during the same seasonal conditions that other nations can.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Perhaps one of our ASW experts could explain what an arctic ASW capability would entail, I assume the theortical threat is a nuke boat under polar ice?

 

[Kirkhill]

Would it be appropriate to be able to meet the Danish Thetis or a USCG Cutter with a similarly armed vessel so that we can companionably swap bottles of Jack, CC and Gamel Dansk (Don't drink the Gamel Dansk!!)

When not swapping bottles they could be practicing taking pot shots at offending foreign fishing vessels and the occasional smuggler.   I don't know as how we need naval ice-breakers so much as we need armed patrol vessels capable in operating in the ice and that are capable of out-running your average trawler, container ship or tanker.  And the ability to land a Medium helicopter would be nice.

These hovercraft that are being discussed elsewhere I don't see them as being anything more than a launch or a landing craft that would operate from a fixed base or a vessel in waters where conventional displacement craft can't operate.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Journeyman: a journalist is utterly deceptive when he describes the Polaris Institute as a

a defence think tank.

  It is no such thing.  Here is its motto:
http://www.polarisinstitute.org/

So thats it then ... its an "anti-defence think tank." But even in that case, the word "tank" is not appropriate....

 

[MarkOttawa]

Airbus still lobbying hard for A400M" "Plane maker steps up pressure on Forces:
European firm rallies support for 'fair, open' competition for new transport aircraft", Ottawa Citizen, May 25 (full text not online).
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=f9b60783-9fab-4a90-ac95-1b03b984d921

Excerpts:

'Concerned that the Harper government is set to hand a multibillion-dollar contract for long-range military aircraft to a U.S. firm, a European aerospace consortium is trying to rally Canadian companies to lobby for a fair and open competition.

EADS Canada has sent letters to more than 100 small- and medium-sized companies asking them to join the push to allow a competition in the program to buy strategic lift aircraft for the Canadian Forces...

The company that eventually wins the contract to provide strategic airlift planes will be required to provide regional industrial benefits, essentially spinoff work for Canadian industry.

If the federal government proceeds with awarding the contract to one firm, Mr. Johnston said, it severely limits the leverage it needs to negotiate such industrial benefits.

The A400M is currently being built and is expected to fly starting in 2008. Critics of the plane say it won't be ready in time for Canadian needs. But EADS says it could start deliveries to Canada shortly after 2010.

EADS officials also question whether there is a need to buy strategic airlift planes immediately, noting that Canada has access to such aircraft under a NATO program.

Boeing officials are optimistic the Harper government will place an order for their giant C-17. A program to purchase four to six C-17s is estimated to cost around $2 billion...'

Comments:

1) As an airplane that still has not flown, and as one that will have all new engines, how realistic is to expect the A400M to go from first flight in 2008 (if that schedule holds) to deliveries to Canada "shortly after 2010" (does that mean 2011)?

2) I think I have read that a major problem with the Antonovs that NATO has leased is that they have no short/rough field capability (unlike the C-17) and thus could not land at more forward airbases where the C-17 can.  True?

3) The A400M may serve as a strategic lifter for most Europeans, but they do not often have to fly the trans-oceanic ranges we do--which makes the A400M much less suitable for Canada.  True?

Mark
Ottawa