Suggestion‘s to improve the C.F
- Thread starter Spr.Earl
- Start date
Michael Dorosh
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Fred - what makes you think the average citizen would have a clue what Canada‘s tactical and operational needs are? For that matter, what makes you believe the average soldier would know, either?
nuLL - Peacekeeping is dead, according to Granatstein and others. The last roto to Bosnia, or at least guys from my unit who went, described the tour as "a joke." They rode around in Iltises and BSed with the locals. How does that prepare us for the LAV III vs Leopard debate?
Given the ineffectiveness of the United Nations, why train for peace missions that are few in number now and getting even more scarce?
Shouldn‘t we really be beefing up to follow the US on wars of conquest in North Korea, Iran, and central Africa?
nuLL - Peacekeeping is dead, according to Granatstein and others. The last roto to Bosnia, or at least guys from my unit who went, described the tour as "a joke." They rode around in Iltises and BSed with the locals. How does that prepare us for the LAV III vs Leopard debate?
Given the ineffectiveness of the United Nations, why train for peace missions that are few in number now and getting even more scarce?
Shouldn‘t we really be beefing up to follow the US on wars of conquest in North Korea, Iran, and central Africa?
Peacekeeping is dead? What‘s going on in the Congo right now? The Solomon Islands? Liberia? Countless other spots around the world?
Given the questionable motives of the United States when it comes to "going to war" why on earth would you suggest following them anywhere? Half of the US engagements in the last two decades (like the first Gulf War, Nicaragua) how ended up with even more dire humanitarian situations.
And while Bosnia may no longer need peacekeepers, I heard there were no more rotations that were headed there. Can you clarify this?
EDIT: And wasn‘t the original incursion into Bosnia NATO led? It just seems to me, following the news, that the UN does a **** of alot of good in the world, and rather than attempt to rip out it‘s foundations, we should make every effort to prop it up. Isn‘t the United States planning on appealing to the UN to get international support in Iraq? And aren‘t they having difficulties because the other countries (like India, Russia) waiting for a UN resolution?
Given the questionable motives of the United States when it comes to "going to war" why on earth would you suggest following them anywhere? Half of the US engagements in the last two decades (like the first Gulf War, Nicaragua) how ended up with even more dire humanitarian situations.
And while Bosnia may no longer need peacekeepers, I heard there were no more rotations that were headed there. Can you clarify this?
EDIT: And wasn‘t the original incursion into Bosnia NATO led? It just seems to me, following the news, that the UN does a **** of alot of good in the world, and rather than attempt to rip out it‘s foundations, we should make every effort to prop it up. Isn‘t the United States planning on appealing to the UN to get international support in Iraq? And aren‘t they having difficulties because the other countries (like India, Russia) waiting for a UN resolution?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I think what Michael meant was that the old traditional version of peacekeeping, the blue beret era where both sides "invited" the UN troops in is changing.
What we are seeing now is more akin to Paeacemaking missions where the forces are being deployed into what are in fact still war zones as opposed to enforcing ceasefire agreements
(Suez, Cyprus), often without the "consent" of the combatants.
Most of the exmples you list would fall into this new category. Many of these missions are also being initiated outside of the aspects of the UN, ie by NATO, OAS, or even unilateral missions (France, the US)
What we are seeing now is more akin to Paeacemaking missions where the forces are being deployed into what are in fact still war zones as opposed to enforcing ceasefire agreements
(Suez, Cyprus), often without the "consent" of the combatants.
Most of the exmples you list would fall into this new category. Many of these missions are also being initiated outside of the aspects of the UN, ie by NATO, OAS, or even unilateral missions (France, the US)
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
To get back onto the original topic
What does the CF need if it recieved the cash?
1] More recruits, better trained, actually the same training as regs., one standard for all.
2] Better integration of Res. and Reg. forces, a total force concept. I believe each unit should be able to work in any group, brigade configuration and do the job as if it is a regular army unit.
3] More equipment: wheeled transport, heavy-lift aircraft, Roto-wing (both transport and tactical), and sea-lift capabilities.
4] Increase air tactical support, both fixed wing and roto-wing.
5] A specific political direction (longterm policy) as to what the CF will be doing in the next 10 years.
I.E.: PeaceKeeping and/or PeaceEnforcing
my $0.02 for what its worth...
What does the CF need if it recieved the cash?
1] More recruits, better trained, actually the same training as regs., one standard for all.
2] Better integration of Res. and Reg. forces, a total force concept. I believe each unit should be able to work in any group, brigade configuration and do the job as if it is a regular army unit.
3] More equipment: wheeled transport, heavy-lift aircraft, Roto-wing (both transport and tactical), and sea-lift capabilities.
4] Increase air tactical support, both fixed wing and roto-wing.
5] A specific political direction (longterm policy) as to what the CF will be doing in the next 10 years.
I.E.: PeaceKeeping and/or PeaceEnforcing
my $0.02 for what its worth...
Michael Dorosh
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Danjanou has it right - although I never said I agreed with the statement that peacekeeping is dead, just reporting what others are saying.
Why would anyone use Liberia as an example of peacekeeping?
Why would anyone use Liberia as an example of peacekeeping?
B
BradT
Guest
Personally, I think it would be great if Canada would put 3-5 year program to procure new, state of the art equiptment. The money would not be taken from health care and such, but useless spending, and possibly, a cut in Foreign aid.
My 2 cents on what the different branches of Candada could use.
Navy
-6 New Destroyers, replacing the Iroquos class ones, the Spruance class ( http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/dd-963.htm ) would work, its high class and way cheaper then a Zumwalt or other.
-REAL Subs, SSN class, maybe L.A ( http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ssn-688.htm ) Expencive, but probably best in the world. (900 million each) Somthing like a sturgeon may be cheaper, ( http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ssn-637.htm ) 320 million each
-Somthing like a Tarwana class Carrier, amphibious attack ship ( http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/lha-1.htm )
Army.
The infantry is fairly well equiped, but what the CF could use is possibly Heavy Tanks, Abrams? ( http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm )
Appache hellicopters, and Chinooks could help Canada in the air, the Griffin is not enough, and the appache would bring the needed attack hellicopter.
Airforce
C-5 or C-17 (C-5 http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-5.htm C-17 http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-17.htm )
My 2 cents on what the different branches of Candada could use.
Navy
-6 New Destroyers, replacing the Iroquos class ones, the Spruance class ( http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/dd-963.htm ) would work, its high class and way cheaper then a Zumwalt or other.
-REAL Subs, SSN class, maybe L.A ( http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ssn-688.htm ) Expencive, but probably best in the world. (900 million each) Somthing like a sturgeon may be cheaper, ( http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ssn-637.htm ) 320 million each
-Somthing like a Tarwana class Carrier, amphibious attack ship ( http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/lha-1.htm )
Army.
The infantry is fairly well equiped, but what the CF could use is possibly Heavy Tanks, Abrams? ( http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm )
Appache hellicopters, and Chinooks could help Canada in the air, the Griffin is not enough, and the appache would bring the needed attack hellicopter.
Airforce
C-5 or C-17 (C-5 http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-5.htm C-17 http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-17.htm )
Gorgo
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 38
- Points
- 330
>>Fred - what makes you think the average citizen would have a clue what Canada‘s tactical and operational needs are? For that matter, what makes you believe the average soldier would know, either?
I concede that point, Michael; I didn‘t consider it when I wrote my first post for this particular topic. It‘s clearly obvious that something about that has to be done. How would you propose to change that? It‘s clearly obvious to me that such a high level of ignorance by the general public (especially the VOTING public) is doing much more harm than good by making the politicos in the Land of Oz think they can do anything they want with the military.
Fred
I concede that point, Michael; I didn‘t consider it when I wrote my first post for this particular topic. It‘s clearly obvious that something about that has to be done. How would you propose to change that? It‘s clearly obvious to me that such a high level of ignorance by the general public (especially the VOTING public) is doing much more harm than good by making the politicos in the Land of Oz think they can do anything they want with the military.
Fred
Gorgo
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 38
- Points
- 330
>> Personally, I think it would be great if Canada would put 3-5 year program to procure new, state of the art equiptment. The money would not be taken from health care and such, but useless spending, and possibly, a cut in Foreign aid.
I personally believe a review of national taxation policy would do very good here.
Now, let‘s see...
>>Navy-6 New Destroyers, replacing the Iroquos class ones, the Spruance class
The SPRUANCE is a 1970s design despite it being modular in construction. We can design our own and I‘ll lay a strong wager that the folks working for the CNS in Ottawa are already making some preliminary plans towards that end.
Funny, now that I think about it: there was a rumour circulating around back in the late 1980s (when yours truly was serving on SAGUENAY) that the U.S.N. was willing to offer some of the older SPRUANCEs to MARCOM for a proverbal penny.
>> -REAL Subs, SSN class, maybe L.A. Expencive, but probably best in the world. Somthing like a sturgeon may be cheaper. 320 million each.
Won‘t happen, not for quite some time to come. Only reason we‘d might want to consider nuc boats is if there‘s a threat coming from the Arctic Ocean. With the Russian navy a mere shadow of its former self, the expenditure isn‘t worth it. Besides, AIP propulsion for diesels is improving by the day. Once MARCOM finally works the kinks out of the VICTORIAs, we‘ll be alright.
>> -Somthing like a Tarwana class Carrier, amphibious attack ship.
Again, won‘t happen. First, we don‘t have any dedicated amphibious assault troops like Uncle Sam‘s Misguided Children to put on these ships. Second, what would the ship‘s air wing be composed of? AIRCOM‘s already dragging its feet when it comes to finally replacing the CH-124As and by the looks of things, they‘re only going to get enough helos to service the IROQUOISes, the HALIFAXes and the upcoming AOR replacements (whenever THAT happens, of course!). Atop that, do you seriously believe DND would splurge for something like the AV-8B Harrier?!
If we EVER go back into carrier ops again (and I concede it will be a VERY BIG "if!"), we‘ll probably have something akin to the old French CVs, equipped to fly the CF-188 (saving loads of money when it comes to obtaining parts for said aircraft since 3 Wing and 4 Wing use the very same birds), plus whatever serves as the CP-121 Tracker‘s replacement in the U.S.N. these days).
>> Army-The infantry is fairly well equiped, but what the CF could use is possibly Heavy Tanks, Abrams?
I‘m personally sure all the armoured people would gladly love to get their hands on the M1A2 if the government is willing to splurge for something like that. However, obtaining something like the Abrams should logically depend on what Canada as a whole would want from the RCD, the Strathconas, 12e RBC and the 8th Hussars. This relates back to my previous post on this particular topic. What DO we want the CF to be capable of doing?
In LFC‘s spere of influence, does this mean that we want a standard "heavy" fighting force like what we once expected of 4 CMBG in Germany many moons ago? Or do we want something light and air-transportable for rapid-response work?
I‘ve heard (though I could be very wrong; if I am, someone PLEASE correct me) that there‘s a version of the LAV-25 now coming out fitted with a 105 mm gun. With improvements in projectile and armour technology, such a vehicle could possibly do the same job as an M1A2 -- and THREE LAVs weigh as much as only ONE Abrams.
>> Appache hellicopters, and Chinooks could help Canada in the air, the Griffin is not enough, and the appache would bring the needed attack hellicopter.
?! Didn‘t we retire the Chinhooks sometime back?
As for getting attack helos, there‘s also the RAH-66 Comanches now coming out for the U.S. Army. I believe this is a dual-purpose helo (if I am wrong, please correct me someone) which could serve in both anti-armour and air recce roles. And yes, I do agree that a much stronger tac air presence would certainly be welcome beyond what the Griffin can offer.
>> Airforce-C-5 or C-17
I think everyone on this board can agree that after the experience in Afghanistan, a greater tactical airlift capability for the CF should be made a big priority. Question is, are our major airfields (Trenton especially, but we can also count Cold Lake, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Bagotville and some other places) capable of handling something like a Galaxy and/or a Globemaster?
Atop that, is Lockheed still producing the C-5A? And given how expensive I‘ve heard the C-17 is, will AIRCOM be willing to splurge for them?
I personally believe a review of national taxation policy would do very good here.
Now, let‘s see...
>>Navy-6 New Destroyers, replacing the Iroquos class ones, the Spruance class
The SPRUANCE is a 1970s design despite it being modular in construction. We can design our own and I‘ll lay a strong wager that the folks working for the CNS in Ottawa are already making some preliminary plans towards that end.
Funny, now that I think about it: there was a rumour circulating around back in the late 1980s (when yours truly was serving on SAGUENAY) that the U.S.N. was willing to offer some of the older SPRUANCEs to MARCOM for a proverbal penny.
>> -REAL Subs, SSN class, maybe L.A. Expencive, but probably best in the world. Somthing like a sturgeon may be cheaper. 320 million each.
Won‘t happen, not for quite some time to come. Only reason we‘d might want to consider nuc boats is if there‘s a threat coming from the Arctic Ocean. With the Russian navy a mere shadow of its former self, the expenditure isn‘t worth it. Besides, AIP propulsion for diesels is improving by the day. Once MARCOM finally works the kinks out of the VICTORIAs, we‘ll be alright.
>> -Somthing like a Tarwana class Carrier, amphibious attack ship.
Again, won‘t happen. First, we don‘t have any dedicated amphibious assault troops like Uncle Sam‘s Misguided Children to put on these ships. Second, what would the ship‘s air wing be composed of? AIRCOM‘s already dragging its feet when it comes to finally replacing the CH-124As and by the looks of things, they‘re only going to get enough helos to service the IROQUOISes, the HALIFAXes and the upcoming AOR replacements (whenever THAT happens, of course!). Atop that, do you seriously believe DND would splurge for something like the AV-8B Harrier?!
If we EVER go back into carrier ops again (and I concede it will be a VERY BIG "if!"), we‘ll probably have something akin to the old French CVs, equipped to fly the CF-188 (saving loads of money when it comes to obtaining parts for said aircraft since 3 Wing and 4 Wing use the very same birds), plus whatever serves as the CP-121 Tracker‘s replacement in the U.S.N. these days).
>> Army-The infantry is fairly well equiped, but what the CF could use is possibly Heavy Tanks, Abrams?
I‘m personally sure all the armoured people would gladly love to get their hands on the M1A2 if the government is willing to splurge for something like that. However, obtaining something like the Abrams should logically depend on what Canada as a whole would want from the RCD, the Strathconas, 12e RBC and the 8th Hussars. This relates back to my previous post on this particular topic. What DO we want the CF to be capable of doing?
In LFC‘s spere of influence, does this mean that we want a standard "heavy" fighting force like what we once expected of 4 CMBG in Germany many moons ago? Or do we want something light and air-transportable for rapid-response work?
I‘ve heard (though I could be very wrong; if I am, someone PLEASE correct me) that there‘s a version of the LAV-25 now coming out fitted with a 105 mm gun. With improvements in projectile and armour technology, such a vehicle could possibly do the same job as an M1A2 -- and THREE LAVs weigh as much as only ONE Abrams.
>> Appache hellicopters, and Chinooks could help Canada in the air, the Griffin is not enough, and the appache would bring the needed attack hellicopter.
?! Didn‘t we retire the Chinhooks sometime back?
As for getting attack helos, there‘s also the RAH-66 Comanches now coming out for the U.S. Army. I believe this is a dual-purpose helo (if I am wrong, please correct me someone) which could serve in both anti-armour and air recce roles. And yes, I do agree that a much stronger tac air presence would certainly be welcome beyond what the Griffin can offer.
>> Airforce-C-5 or C-17
I think everyone on this board can agree that after the experience in Afghanistan, a greater tactical airlift capability for the CF should be made a big priority. Question is, are our major airfields (Trenton especially, but we can also count Cold Lake, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Bagotville and some other places) capable of handling something like a Galaxy and/or a Globemaster?
Atop that, is Lockheed still producing the C-5A? And given how expensive I‘ve heard the C-17 is, will AIRCOM be willing to splurge for them?
Michael Dorosh
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Fred - what would I do to change it (ie politicians doing the wrong things with the military)?
That‘s the million dollar question. Maybe I need to go to flight school and buy myself a box cutter. Sometimes it seems like that would be the only clarion call anyone would heed.
That‘s the million dollar question. Maybe I need to go to flight school and buy myself a box cutter. Sometimes it seems like that would be the only clarion call anyone would heed.
C
Cycophant
Guest
Another reason the CF should really make sure that its goals require such equipment? They don‘t come cheap.
M1A2‘s have a unit cost of about $5 million (US).
AH-64 Apaches, with the Longbow Radar cost about $18 million (US) a piece. With supplies/etc, that goes up to about $26 million (US) a piece.
The CF better hope it gets a heck of a lot more public support, and therefore cash, before it could even hope to purchase anything along those lines.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 6,701
- Points
- 1,160
Heres an idea i think would help to improve the quality of training in the CF.
When on excersise the "good guys" not be told exactly when the enemy is suposed to attack.
"Were expecting enemy movement down this road at 2130hrs troop, its VERY LIKELY they will attack so be ready"
This type of stuff leads to troops shutting down eairly on ex‘s. If they know exactly when they will be attacked and they can get ready for it it‘s not doing much to condition them to always be on guard or prepared. Anyone can be alert for 15 minutes and blow away people who are walking around acting on a schedule.
I guess to me it just doesn‘t seem very realistic training.
Troops get harped on alot for not ‘acting like its real‘. I think that should apply to higher ups too. Taking a jeep to recce out where you will be doing a deliberate attack the next day in broad daylight makes things alittle too easy.
When on excersise the "good guys" not be told exactly when the enemy is suposed to attack.
"Were expecting enemy movement down this road at 2130hrs troop, its VERY LIKELY they will attack so be ready"
This type of stuff leads to troops shutting down eairly on ex‘s. If they know exactly when they will be attacked and they can get ready for it it‘s not doing much to condition them to always be on guard or prepared. Anyone can be alert for 15 minutes and blow away people who are walking around acting on a schedule.
I guess to me it just doesn‘t seem very realistic training.
Troops get harped on alot for not ‘acting like its real‘. I think that should apply to higher ups too. Taking a jeep to recce out where you will be doing a deliberate attack the next day in broad daylight makes things alittle too easy.
Gorgo
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 38
- Points
- 330
>> Fred - what would I do to change it (ie politicians doing the wrong things with the military)?
>> That‘s the million dollar question. Maybe I need to go to flight school and buy myself a box cutter. Sometimes it seems like that would be the only clarion call anyone would heed.
I hope to heaven that it NEVER comes to that.
>> That‘s the million dollar question. Maybe I need to go to flight school and buy myself a box cutter. Sometimes it seems like that would be the only clarion call anyone would heed.
I hope to heaven that it NEVER comes to that.
Z
zortag
Guest
My .02
First off, I‘m not in the army (working on it. First it was my medical, now it‘s my background check, but I‘m not going to start about that), I‘m not a professional anything yet. Yes I‘m still in university, no, I‘d like to think I‘m not an arrogant little puke (although I may very well be). That said, these are just opinions (some more informed than others) and ideas, usually brought on by animated conversation over the beer table with my anarchist, vegan, union building friend. He is the exact opposite of me
Secondly I‘d like to reply to Fred a bit.
>>Only reason we‘d might want to consider nuc boats is if there‘s a threat coming from the Arctic Ocean. With the Russian navy a mere shadow of its former self, the expenditure isn‘t worth it.
The way I see it, it‘s not a matter of whether the threat is present at the moment or not. What really matters here is the question of sovereignty. Right now, Canada make claim to arctic territories up to the pole as Canadian land, however without an ability to patrol our great white north our claims are mocked but American and Russian exercises that are conducted in Canadian territory without Canadian permission. It‘s true that there‘s no impending doom coming out of the artic, but it‘s important that we be able to patrol our own backyard. Now I‘m not saying that we need a dozen LA class subs, for what we need them for, the Victoria‘s do a fine job, but we should have one or two (or as many as it would take) to have a presence in the north, something we‘re not even capable of right now whatever that under-ice presence might be.
That‘s about all I had to say about that.
Without getting into wishful thinking about aircraft carriers and heavy armor. I think it‘s important to look at the role of future combat, too me it looks like the days of regiments squaring off are largely gone, and we‘re moving towards smaller squad based combat, based on speed and accuracy. Although I might be wrong, wouldn‘t this make things like heavy armor more a liability more that anything else. Also the heavier we make ourselves the harder it will be to generate the air-lift capacity we need to function. It would make more sense, in my mind, to move towards lighter armor, IE: the americans and they‘re switch to Stryker vehicles.
A topic that always comes up is the question of funding. I realize that we can‘t spend as much in real terms as the americans, but it‘s the per capita spending that matters, and reveals a glaring canadian deficiency. If we look at NATO as a whole, the average defence spending per capita is 589 USD the average in the G-7 is 508 USD. Canada spends 265$.
That figure seems greatly out of proportion to me. It‘s easy to look at the US and say that they have no social safety net and that that‘s how they can afford it, but it‘s alot harder to say that of France, Germany, Italy (actually not so sure about there social net...anyone?) but any of the european countries have both comprehensive safety nets for the populace and a well funded military. Why not Canada?
This is when we get into the argument over public opinion, and the fact that some, if not most
Canadians, don‘t even think we need a military. As much as I‘d like to go and beat some sense into them with a sack full of history and political science books, I don‘t think I could swing that sack as many times as I‘d have to to get people to understand. I have no idea how to change the Canadian perspective on the military, maybe someone does?
Another interesting fact, if we look at Canada‘s international role is Canada‘s peacekeeper status. There is no denying it, our days of peacekeeping limelight following the first missions the Pearson government involved us in are over. In the heyday of peacekeeping we gave the world 10% of it‘s peacekeeping forces, now countries such as Nepal supply almost 4 times the peacekeepers we do (263 CAN vs 914 NEP) we won‘t even get into Bangladesh‘s 4000+ troops. Now bear in mind that these are UN figures, not NATO. I‘m not counting the 1269 troops in Bosnia, nor the others on NATO deployment, but in no way trying to dimish their role.
There are fundamental flaws in the UN charter which explain the switch from UN to NATO peacekeeping. The same flaws that allow it to sit idly by during atocities in Rwanda and Somalia. And in Iraq and Bosnia. Timor and Liberia. Palestine and Israel. And many other regimes that deserve military attention from the international community. That‘s why the Amercan‘s decided to to move into Iraq.
Although I‘m sure they had their own self-serving *cough*oil*cough* reasons, the fact remains that something had to be done about Iraq, that should have been done 10 years ago, and done by the UN. As it stands right now, the UN is in danger of becoming another League of Nations......but I‘m getting off topic here.
Another large problem I see with the CF is personel, be it recruitment, training or retention, the CF has some serious problems with personel.
The biggest visible problem I can identify, is that the CF has no drawing power to the average public. If the military is to draw people, it needs to think like a business. Serving in the army isn‘t like anyother job. Even the desk jockey could end up in the field one day (god-forbid!) there has to be a recognition of the special status our armed forces serve. Substandard housing, and mediocre pay compared to the private sector is not the way to go.
Personally I think that CF members should get above industry average for their trade. They should be able to get below market rate housing, both on and off base (already mentioned by someone earlier).
The recruitment process leaves a bit to be desired. Someone who comes off the street is looking at 4-6 months for enrolment, that just doesn‘t make sense. Although I understand the argument that if they want it, they‘ll wait, it‘s still demoralizing to be stonewalled by red tape (maybe I‘m just bitter). It‘s even more ridiculous that you have to wait 6-12 months for your VFS. That means that I‘m going to be starting my switch from Res. to Reg. With a year left in school.
There needs to be an incentive for people to join the military, and to stay in the military. One the ideas I came up with was an income tax break from CF personel, using a graduated scale over the years until you hit a certain plateau. Maybe even a complete income tax dispensation after X years of service. The tax base of the military isn‘t enough to affect GC revenue that much.
They need a complete financial restructuring. I‘m double majoring, and one of my majors is economics, and some of the things the CF do are just plain stupid. Look at Fort St.Jean. They sell the base to a private sector firm that rents it out to a whole bunch of things, then the CF just rents space from the fort so they can do courses? The smart thing to do is to rent the spaces out themselves.
Anywho, I‘ll stop there, what was originally going to be a quick post, turned into a marathon, but who knows, maybe I raised a good point or two.
Slainthe Mhath!
First off, I‘m not in the army (working on it. First it was my medical, now it‘s my background check, but I‘m not going to start about that), I‘m not a professional anything yet. Yes I‘m still in university, no, I‘d like to think I‘m not an arrogant little puke (although I may very well be). That said, these are just opinions (some more informed than others) and ideas, usually brought on by animated conversation over the beer table with my anarchist, vegan, union building friend. He is the exact opposite of me
Secondly I‘d like to reply to Fred a bit.
>>Only reason we‘d might want to consider nuc boats is if there‘s a threat coming from the Arctic Ocean. With the Russian navy a mere shadow of its former self, the expenditure isn‘t worth it.
The way I see it, it‘s not a matter of whether the threat is present at the moment or not. What really matters here is the question of sovereignty. Right now, Canada make claim to arctic territories up to the pole as Canadian land, however without an ability to patrol our great white north our claims are mocked but American and Russian exercises that are conducted in Canadian territory without Canadian permission. It‘s true that there‘s no impending doom coming out of the artic, but it‘s important that we be able to patrol our own backyard. Now I‘m not saying that we need a dozen LA class subs, for what we need them for, the Victoria‘s do a fine job, but we should have one or two (or as many as it would take) to have a presence in the north, something we‘re not even capable of right now whatever that under-ice presence might be.
That‘s about all I had to say about that.
Without getting into wishful thinking about aircraft carriers and heavy armor. I think it‘s important to look at the role of future combat, too me it looks like the days of regiments squaring off are largely gone, and we‘re moving towards smaller squad based combat, based on speed and accuracy. Although I might be wrong, wouldn‘t this make things like heavy armor more a liability more that anything else. Also the heavier we make ourselves the harder it will be to generate the air-lift capacity we need to function. It would make more sense, in my mind, to move towards lighter armor, IE: the americans and they‘re switch to Stryker vehicles.
A topic that always comes up is the question of funding. I realize that we can‘t spend as much in real terms as the americans, but it‘s the per capita spending that matters, and reveals a glaring canadian deficiency. If we look at NATO as a whole, the average defence spending per capita is 589 USD the average in the G-7 is 508 USD. Canada spends 265$.
That figure seems greatly out of proportion to me. It‘s easy to look at the US and say that they have no social safety net and that that‘s how they can afford it, but it‘s alot harder to say that of France, Germany, Italy (actually not so sure about there social net...anyone?) but any of the european countries have both comprehensive safety nets for the populace and a well funded military. Why not Canada?
This is when we get into the argument over public opinion, and the fact that some, if not most
Canadians, don‘t even think we need a military. As much as I‘d like to go and beat some sense into them with a sack full of history and political science books, I don‘t think I could swing that sack as many times as I‘d have to to get people to understand. I have no idea how to change the Canadian perspective on the military, maybe someone does?
Another interesting fact, if we look at Canada‘s international role is Canada‘s peacekeeper status. There is no denying it, our days of peacekeeping limelight following the first missions the Pearson government involved us in are over. In the heyday of peacekeeping we gave the world 10% of it‘s peacekeeping forces, now countries such as Nepal supply almost 4 times the peacekeepers we do (263 CAN vs 914 NEP) we won‘t even get into Bangladesh‘s 4000+ troops. Now bear in mind that these are UN figures, not NATO. I‘m not counting the 1269 troops in Bosnia, nor the others on NATO deployment, but in no way trying to dimish their role.
There are fundamental flaws in the UN charter which explain the switch from UN to NATO peacekeeping. The same flaws that allow it to sit idly by during atocities in Rwanda and Somalia. And in Iraq and Bosnia. Timor and Liberia. Palestine and Israel. And many other regimes that deserve military attention from the international community. That‘s why the Amercan‘s decided to to move into Iraq.
Although I‘m sure they had their own self-serving *cough*oil*cough* reasons, the fact remains that something had to be done about Iraq, that should have been done 10 years ago, and done by the UN. As it stands right now, the UN is in danger of becoming another League of Nations......but I‘m getting off topic here.
Another large problem I see with the CF is personel, be it recruitment, training or retention, the CF has some serious problems with personel.
The biggest visible problem I can identify, is that the CF has no drawing power to the average public. If the military is to draw people, it needs to think like a business. Serving in the army isn‘t like anyother job. Even the desk jockey could end up in the field one day (god-forbid!) there has to be a recognition of the special status our armed forces serve. Substandard housing, and mediocre pay compared to the private sector is not the way to go.
Personally I think that CF members should get above industry average for their trade. They should be able to get below market rate housing, both on and off base (already mentioned by someone earlier).
The recruitment process leaves a bit to be desired. Someone who comes off the street is looking at 4-6 months for enrolment, that just doesn‘t make sense. Although I understand the argument that if they want it, they‘ll wait, it‘s still demoralizing to be stonewalled by red tape (maybe I‘m just bitter). It‘s even more ridiculous that you have to wait 6-12 months for your VFS. That means that I‘m going to be starting my switch from Res. to Reg. With a year left in school.
There needs to be an incentive for people to join the military, and to stay in the military. One the ideas I came up with was an income tax break from CF personel, using a graduated scale over the years until you hit a certain plateau. Maybe even a complete income tax dispensation after X years of service. The tax base of the military isn‘t enough to affect GC revenue that much.
They need a complete financial restructuring. I‘m double majoring, and one of my majors is economics, and some of the things the CF do are just plain stupid. Look at Fort St.Jean. They sell the base to a private sector firm that rents it out to a whole bunch of things, then the CF just rents space from the fort so they can do courses? The smart thing to do is to rent the spaces out themselves.
Anywho, I‘ll stop there, what was originally going to be a quick post, turned into a marathon, but who knows, maybe I raised a good point or two.
Slainthe Mhath!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Since Paul Martin is practically assured to become the next Prime Minister, take a look at this:
http://www.heurepaulmartin.ca/where-paul-stands/stories_e.asp?id=553
here is a few highlights if you don‘t want to look at the whole page.
"the leadership candidate called for a major foreign policy review, increased military spending, targeted foreign aid budgets and an immediate replacement of the Sea King helicopters."
"As an example, the military must have the capacity to lead missions in the Congo where reports of ethnic civil war have gone unanswered by multilateral organizations, including the United Nations."
“We have to increase our military spending based on the post-September 11 model. The old model is nation-to-nation. It is now the fight against global terrorism.â€
"On the domestic front, Martin called for a national security system able to respond to everything from threats to the country’s transportation networks to protecting Arctic sovereignty."
I guess we will all see soon enough, if this is all just political maneuvering, and hot air, but It could be an exciting time, in my opinion, to be joining up. Hopefully new courses, or trades would be implemented, lots of things long needing repair or replacement, would get it, it could be good.
http://www.heurepaulmartin.ca/where-paul-stands/stories_e.asp?id=553
here is a few highlights if you don‘t want to look at the whole page.
"the leadership candidate called for a major foreign policy review, increased military spending, targeted foreign aid budgets and an immediate replacement of the Sea King helicopters."
"As an example, the military must have the capacity to lead missions in the Congo where reports of ethnic civil war have gone unanswered by multilateral organizations, including the United Nations."
“We have to increase our military spending based on the post-September 11 model. The old model is nation-to-nation. It is now the fight against global terrorism.â€
"On the domestic front, Martin called for a national security system able to respond to everything from threats to the country’s transportation networks to protecting Arctic sovereignty."
I guess we will all see soon enough, if this is all just political maneuvering, and hot air, but It could be an exciting time, in my opinion, to be joining up. Hopefully new courses, or trades would be implemented, lots of things long needing repair or replacement, would get it, it could be good.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
You made some cool points, but there was only one thing I had a major problem with. Rwanda. First of all the UN didn‘t just sit and watch: there was a plan in place, but it was voted down.... by guess who the USA. I‘m not saying the plan would of worked, but there was no action because it was veto not because of inaction. The UN isn‘t the best place for forming peacekeeping missions, but the thing that people seem to forgot is that countries draw up the plans and they vote on them. If the seruity coucil really wanted to have a real mission they could just draw it and actually vote for it.
Just my 2cents on the UN and peacekeeping.
Just my 2cents on the UN and peacekeeping.
B
BradT
Guest
That could make sence, but I still doubt a liberal doing that.
I also forgot attack aircraft
Canada should be part of the F-35 Mustang Program, and possibly consider some cheaper attack plane like the A-10 (they run at 7.5-9 million a peice USD).
I also forgot attack aircraft
Canada should be part of the F-35 Mustang Program, and possibly consider some cheaper attack plane like the A-10 (they run at 7.5-9 million a peice USD).
Gorgo
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 38
- Points
- 330
To Mr. Willow,
>> First off, I‘m not in the army (working on it.
What trade are you planning to be part of?
>> The way I see it, it‘s not a matter of whether the threat is present at the moment or not. What really matters here is the question of sovereignty.
I agree with that. I‘d say we‘d be in excellent shape if we got hold of at LEAST six SSNs (either the U.S. VIRGINIA class [name them after the provinces?] or the British TRAFALGAR since the LAs are no longer in production), put three boats on each coast, then have one boat on Arctic sovereignty patrol at all times, rotating from coast to coast. Atop that, let the Coast Guard get their hands on improved icebreakers like the Polar 8 and have them be the more "visible" sign to outsiders that (with apologies to the McKenzie brothers
) "Like, this is OUR Great White North, you hosers! Take off!"
Unfortunately, as you mentioned in your post, we‘d have to seriously shake off this widespread attitude about the military and its place in Canadian society. I think the ideas you bring up at the end of your post (the tax breaks, having better pay, streamlining the recruiting process, etc) sound very good. But can we persuade the government to try this out? I‘m not sure.
Something else that should be kept in mind, now that I think about it, is how our geographic position vis-a-vis the United States tends to factor into things like this. One attitude I think seriously needs changing is the idea that the Americans would come to our rescue in case something happens in Canada. We need people to realize if we‘re to truly call ourselves a *sovereign* nation, WE have to see to our own defence. YES, team up with the Americans on matters like NORAD, anti-terror defence and the like (not to mention the mundane things like equipment procurement and the like). YES, team up with the U.S., NATO and the UN on peacemaking operations. But we have to assume all along that when it comes to something that threatens our national interests (as defined by public policy), WE have to see if we can deal with it on our own.
If we can make people across the country realize that, IMO, we‘d have taken a big step towards making some REAL changes in the CF.
Fred
>> First off, I‘m not in the army (working on it.
What trade are you planning to be part of?
>> The way I see it, it‘s not a matter of whether the threat is present at the moment or not. What really matters here is the question of sovereignty.
I agree with that. I‘d say we‘d be in excellent shape if we got hold of at LEAST six SSNs (either the U.S. VIRGINIA class [name them after the provinces?] or the British TRAFALGAR since the LAs are no longer in production), put three boats on each coast, then have one boat on Arctic sovereignty patrol at all times, rotating from coast to coast. Atop that, let the Coast Guard get their hands on improved icebreakers like the Polar 8 and have them be the more "visible" sign to outsiders that (with apologies to the McKenzie brothers
) "Like, this is OUR Great White North, you hosers! Take off!"Unfortunately, as you mentioned in your post, we‘d have to seriously shake off this widespread attitude about the military and its place in Canadian society. I think the ideas you bring up at the end of your post (the tax breaks, having better pay, streamlining the recruiting process, etc) sound very good. But can we persuade the government to try this out? I‘m not sure.
Something else that should be kept in mind, now that I think about it, is how our geographic position vis-a-vis the United States tends to factor into things like this. One attitude I think seriously needs changing is the idea that the Americans would come to our rescue in case something happens in Canada. We need people to realize if we‘re to truly call ourselves a *sovereign* nation, WE have to see to our own defence. YES, team up with the Americans on matters like NORAD, anti-terror defence and the like (not to mention the mundane things like equipment procurement and the like). YES, team up with the U.S., NATO and the UN on peacemaking operations. But we have to assume all along that when it comes to something that threatens our national interests (as defined by public policy), WE have to see if we can deal with it on our own.
If we can make people across the country realize that, IMO, we‘d have taken a big step towards making some REAL changes in the CF.
Fred
Similar threads
