Quote of the Day from the New Defence Procurment Strategy

[Container]

All the elements get their time in the sun. The Canada First Defence Strategy, to me, appears very RCAF and RCN heavy. Expect many photo ops and new ops that flex those capabilities.

From my own opinion of course.

 

[Journeyman]

But did come at the expense of other things, and the navy and airforce could really use some new (read supportable) equipment. 

I suspect that your time is on the horizon.

Afghanistan didn't produce any clear-cut victories leading to VE Day-style parades, so there's no political mileage to be made there. While others have commented on the reliability of future threat forecasts, I suspect that whatever government is in power will avoid a repeat performance any time soon, and find reasons to deploy CAF elements in less-costly ways (in direct money, lives' lost, post-war issues) in order to reduce Op Ed criticism.  This isn't a slight against my brother services, but the Air Force ops in Libya and the Navy in the Arabian Sea were largely ignored by the yammering crowd; because of that, those missions will likely be the way ahead.

As such, I can see Air and Navy funding being supported as the 'politically safe' course of action.  For the Army, it may be time to dust off the baby blue berets; the hand-wringers can rejoice in their return to the peacekeeping myth and the government can be seen deploying troops with minimal expensive equipment and reduced risk to life.



My  :2c: ...and worth exactly what you paid for it.

 

[pbi]

Amended slightly...
..But did come at the expense of other things, and the navy and airforce could really use some new (read supportable) equipment....
Unfortunately it just happens to coincide with some political BS so they are doing everything they can to delay any and all actual spending on new ships, but they don't want to hear that the 40+ year old ships are just done.  Despite the most optimistic predictions, they are doing a pretty good job of 'self-divesting' ahead of schedule.

You might be surprised to find that, in my opinion, the defence of Canada and of North America (our two highest defence priorities) are really all about the RCN and the RCAF. If the Army is involved in operations to defend the soil of Canada, something has gone seriously wrong.

So, if we are going to focus on those two priorities (and there is no reason we shouldn't, and lots of good reasons why we should), then I agree with Container that there is "blue" sky ahead, literally.

Both services are heavily dependent on large, expensive pieces of complex machinery that take a very long time to develop and to build, and can't be replaced easily, and require massive land-based infrastructure to support.  The services simply can't do their jobs without these things. Large, expensive procurement programs are a prerequisite for real capability in these services. This is not WWII where we can crank out a corvette a week in Joe's Boatyard.

My reflections on the last ten years were focused on the Army because that is what I know about, not because I wanted to dismiss the other three components.

If I controlled the purse strings, I would definitely order the priorities as RCAF (because its capability is vital to both maritime and land ops), then the RCN, then the Army. I haven't really thought through SOF, but then they aren't normally the consumers of massive, lengthy procurement programs.

I would like nothing better than to see an RCN that could put up a very good fight on all of our coastlines, while having a respectable capability for joint force projection. That, in my Army mind, would require capable surface and sub-surface combatants, air defence and C2 vessels, a credible maritime air capability, expeditionary theatre-level sustainment capability (not just two old AORs), and the ability to project and sustain a ground force of reasonable size. That would be a very nice Navy.

 

[Infanteer]

You might be surprised to find that, in my opinion, the defence of Canada and of North America (our two highest defence priorities) are really all about the RCN and the RCAF. If the Army is involved in operations to defend the soil of Canada, something has gone seriously wrong.

Except for the Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) operations we get called out for every year.  The Army provides two things; C2 in a time of crisis and manpower.

If I controlled the purse strings, I would definitely order the priorities as RCAF (because its capability is vital to both maritime and land ops), then the RCN, then the Army.

Shades of 1934.  I'd argue that Canada is defended forward.  Threats to our coasts (real threats) are most risky, but least likely to occur.

edit to fix quote box

 

[pbi]

Except for the Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) operations we get called out for every year.  The Army provides two things; C2 in a time of crisis and manpower.

True, but that doesn't require the Army to have a higher priority in continental defence than the RCAF or Navy. To be brutally honest, much of what the Army does under HADR could be done by the Army Reserve (it is very much a USARNG job in the US, not an active Army job), or by a civil force similiar to the German TNHW or the old Civil Defense Service that disappeared back in the 1960's. It isn't much to pin the raison d'etre of an Army on.

Shades of 1934.  I'd argue that Canada is defended forward.  Threats to our coasts (real threats) are most risky, but least likely to occur.

I agree that Canada is defended forward. And the two most forward reaching components, capable of the greatest strategic mobility, are the air and the naval components.

I'm not saying "get rid of the Army" or even "trash the Army". What I am saying is that IF we are going to focus on Continental defence, while retaining the ability to reach out further, the order of priority for major procurement puts the Army last.

Our problem, I think, is that Canada's military image of itself has always focused primarily on the expeditionary activities of the Army, almost to the exclusion of the other services. Maybe we shouldn't assume that our most important committment is always going to be land-centric.

 

[MilEME09]

Our problem, I think, is that Canada's military image of itself has always focused primarily on the expeditionary activities of the Army, almost to the exclusion of the other services. Maybe we shouldn't assume that our most important committment is always going to be land-centric.

Well aside from helicopters, and transport to and from, the air force doesn't really have that projection of power ability, I mean what will we send maybe 4 F-18's? sure we could do it but from a budget standpoint the entire weapons load and fuel for one sortie costs about the same as a small task force. As for the navy some one with more knowledge of naval operations could probably point out why we don't commit more to NATO and UN operations. (other then the small size of the fleet).

 

[pbi]

Well aside from helicopters, and transport to and from, the air force doesn't really have that projection of power ability, I mean what will we send maybe 4 F-18's? sure we could do it but from a budget standpoint the entire weapons load and fuel for one sortie costs about the same as a small task force. As for the navy some one with more knowledge of naval operations could probably point out why we don't commit more to NATO and UN operations. (other then the small size of the fleet).

I'm not defending what "is". I'm arguing what "should be". And we will only get to that "should be" through very expensive and lengthy procurement programs, which would require some pretty strict prioritizing of funds.

And, I beg to differ: a properly resourced Air Force or Navy has more immediate strategic mobility than an Army can ever have (unless it owns its own ships and planes). The Army relies on the other two components for its strategic mobility.

 

[Container]

Also, Libya styled projections cost lots of money- but no Canadians die. Canadians expect the military to cost money- but they dont have the back bone for dead soldiers/sailors/airmen

 

[Colin Parkinson]

yet we did a decade in Afghanistan with a number killed. It's how the mission is sold and or led.