The Dark Years before the Years of Darkness - Are we facing worse times?

[George Wallace]

From the History files:

For the Cold Warriors out there, you may remember the 1980's.  Here are two old CBC reports on Canada's military commitment to NATO.  They are a good review of the situation in the years (1980's) before the Years of Darkness in the 1990's.  For a change the CBC is quite damning of the neglect that the Government has done to the military.

Part I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_XYb3AWK58
Part II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hha91X0cojI

Today, we can witness even more serious problems than those faced in the 1980's and 90's.  Old lessons NOT learned.








Sidebar:  Please don't laugh too hard at the hairstyles. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

The decades of darkness included the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s and extended into the early 2000s. They began in the mid 60s. Those who think that only the 1990s were the decade of darkness are seriously ill informed and lack meaningful experience with defence policy ... and yes, I'm talking about some retired generals, too.

Our commitment to NATO was vital in the 1950s and '60s ... it declined, towards the point of meaninglessness, by the 1980s. But, so did the need ... by the 1980s we were in Europe because it was the going price for a seat at the table, not because anyone with the brains the gods gave to green peppers thought the Russians were coming.

Our commitment to NATO was always and entirely strategic, the military component was secondary ~ the Canadian Forces symbolized a national promise to the West, but the promise, itself, was wholly political in nature.

The decline in public support for the military, which began around 1960, is why successive governments, Conservative and Liberal, alike, starved and still starve the CF ~ that's what the country wanted and that's what it still wants.

 

[Rifleman62]

If it was dark for the Reg F, the Militia suffered even more so. If budgets must be cut, the Militia is always a big target.

We had big units in the 60's , then a continuous downhill avalanche.

I remember the pencils/ruler markings etc.

 

[chrisf]

The oil industry is hiring... comes with an extra 0 on your pay cheque.

 

[YZT580]

I truly believe that most Canadians support the military or rather, they would support the military if they had the chance.  Unfortunately, the general population are never given the chance.  When was the last time that a reasonable justification was printed or aired for general understanding.  It doesn't happen.  What is published is bouncing a sub off the ocean floor, not 50,000 litres per day of water being manufactured in East Asia.  None of the Toronto papers has given any followup to the DART mission so people just don't know.  What they publish is the F35 fiasco or the increased costs for the ship acquisition programme.  The only cities that carry good news are Halifax and Victoria.  The current 2nd and 3rd parties in parliament hate anything in a uniform (including the Salvation Army).  The press never miss an opportunity to come down hard on any government that even suggests spending money on 'war' when there are polar bears to save from drowning.  Military spending, unfortunately, is a large and vulnerable target and it looks good.  But don't think Canadians are against anything military.  We aren't.  Just witness the spontaneous response on the 401 after a ramp ceremony! 

 

[GR66]

I truly believe that most Canadians support the military or rather, they would support the military if they had the chance.  Unfortunately, the general population are never given the chance.  When was the last time that a reasonable justification was printed or aired for general understanding.  It doesn't happen.  What is published is bouncing a sub off the ocean floor, not 50,000 litres per day of water being manufactured in East Asia.  None of the Toronto papers has given any followup to the DART mission so people just don't know.  What they publish is the F35 fiasco or the increased costs for the ship acquisition programme.  The only cities that carry good news are Halifax and Victoria.  The current 2nd and 3rd parties in parliament hate anything in a uniform (including the Salvation Army).  The press never miss an opportunity to come down hard on any government that even suggests spending money on 'war' when there are polar bears to save from drowning.  Military spending, unfortunately, is a large and vulnerable target and it looks good.  But don't think Canadians are against anything military.  We aren't.  Just witness the spontaneous response on the 401 after a ramp ceremony!

Frankly DART producing water is NOT a military story...it's a foreign aid story and to be honest it could probably be supplied cheaper by a non-military organization.  Submarines bumping off the ocean floor and expensive fighter jets however ARE a military story.  The fundamental problem is that nobody is selling a story of WHY we need expensive submarines and fighters so their very existence can become a target of negative reporting. 

Paint the Canadian public a realistic picture of the world we live in.  Develop a comprehensive foreign policy that also clearly explains how and why effective military forces are required to support that policy and then maybe the Canadian tax payer will stand behind the expense of an effective military.  Until that happens be prepared to face deep cuts every time the economy suffers.

 

[Edward Campbell]

:goodpost:

You're quite right.

 

[George Wallace]

The decades of darkness included the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s and extended into the early 2000s. They began in the mid 60s. Those who think that only the 1990s were the decade of darkness are seriously ill informed and lack meaningful experience with defence policy ... and yes, I'm talking about some retired generals, too.

Our commitment to NATO was vital in the 1950s and '60s ... it declined, towards the point of meaninglessness, by the 1980s. But, so did the need ... by the 1980s we were in Europe because it was the going price for a seat at the table, not because anyone with the brains the gods gave to green peppers thought the Russians were coming.

Our commitment to NATO was always and entirely strategic, the military component was secondary ~ the Canadian Forces symbolized a national promise to the West, but the promise, itself, was wholly political in nature.

The decline in public support for the military, which began around 1960, is why successive governments, Conservative and Liberal, alike, starved and still starve the CF ~ that's what the country wanted and that's what it still wants.

Quite agree.  It seems that every military purchase by the Canadian Government since the Korean War amounted to half of what was to be replaced.  We gradually watched our three Services whittled away.  My father was in the RCAF and posted to 1 (F) Wing in Marville, France.  We had four operational RCAF Fighter Wings in Europe in 1950's to 1960's, and a Air Division Headquarters in Metz.  Since then we have gradually seen the RCAF slashed to where we less aircraft in Canada today, than we had in Europe five decades ago.  We have seen Canada go from the third largest Navy in the world at the end of WW II to one of the smallest.  With Unification, we saw many Regular and Reserve Army units disappear.  The trend has always seemed to be to replace what we have with half that number when purchasing new equipment. 

Cuts to infrastructure and OEM have lead to facilities and equipment not being kept in repair, which incurs even more expense, and the cycle goes on. 

Technology advancements over the years have increased the costs of doing business.  Keeping up in the 'Arms Race' is not cheap.  Equipping a military on the cheap is not a truly viable solution if one wants to maintain a status quo on the world stage. 

 

[MilEME09]

Quite agree.  It seems that every military purchase by the Canadian Government since the Korean War amounted to half of what was to be replaced.  We gradually watched our three Services whittled away.  My father was in the RCAF and posted to 1 (F) Wing in Marville, France.  We had four operational RCAF Fighter Wings in Europe in 1950's to 1960's, and a Air Division Headquarters in Metz.  Since then we have gradually seen the RCAF slashed to where we less aircraft in Canada today, than we had in Europe five decades ago.  We have seen Canada go from the third largest Navy in the world at the end of WW II to one of the smallest.  With Unification, we saw many Regular and Reserve Army units disappear.  The trend has always seemed to be to replace what we have with half that number when purchasing new equipment. 

Cuts to infrastructure and OEM have lead to facilities and equipment not being kept in repair, which incurs even more expense, and the cycle goes on. 

Technology advancements over the years have increased the costs of doing business.  Keeping up in the 'Arms Race' is not cheap.  Equipping a military on the cheap is not a truly viable solution if one wants to maintain a status quo on the world stage.

unfortunately its a trend that is continuing back in the 70's/80's we had what 24 destroyers I think that CBC report said, we now have 3 destroyers and 12 frigates. Now it seems due to lack of funds the navy will end up with even less ships (though the project is in the early stages and really we probably would need to wait for the next federal budget to get an updated cost). Look at the Leopard 2's we can't even 1 for 1 replace the C2's. With less and less coming with each purchase eventually DND will have to draw the line, because technological advances doesn't mean you can do more with less. With less of a fleet of vehicles/ships/air craft I argue that less just leads to more problems and said fleet being stretched beyond its limits.

 

[kratz]

The breaking point was already reached with Afghanistan.

We started out attempting to do the job with what we had,
and it was blatantly substandard. So Canadians paid through
the nose for a few upgrades to meet the role we had and
that is about it.

 

[marinemech]

How much have we got tied up in purchases, that have not been delivered, and are so far behind schedule, that we should be fining them more than what we are (currently between 1.5-2 million per month) and the first heli is not slated to be sitting on a Canadian Forces base till 2015, and the other 27 will likely be not ready till the 2020's. This was a 2 Billion dollar expense back in 2004, with delivery slated for 2009. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

Quite agree.  It seems that every military purchase by the Canadian Government since the Korean War amounted to half of what was to be replaced.  We gradually watched our three Services whittled away.  My father was in the RCAF and posted to 1 (F) Wing in Marville, France.  We had four operational RCAF Fighter Wings in Europe in 1950's to 1960's, and a Air Division Headquarters in Metz.  Since then we have gradually seen the RCAF slashed to where we less aircraft in Canada today, than we had in Europe five decades ago.  We have seen Canada go from the third largest Navy in the world at the end of WW II to one of the smallest.  With Unification, we saw many Regular and Reserve Army units disappear.  The trend has always seemed to be to replace what we have with half that number when purchasing new equipment. 

Cuts to infrastructure and OEM have lead to facilities and equipment not being kept in repair, which incurs even more expense, and the cycle goes on. 

Technology advancements over the years have increased the costs of doing business.  Keeping up in the 'Arms Race' is not cheap.  Equipping a military on the cheap is not a truly viable solution if one wants to maintain a status quo on the world stage.

The technological advances have also let us do more, or, at least, the same, with less. The two squadrons of CF-18s we had in Germany in the 1980s were more capable than the four wings we had there in the 1950s and '60s ~ the few CF-18s could carry more bombs farther and faster than all those F-86s.

It is not quite the same with ships - the number of hulls still matters, but each hull is more capable and can stay at sea longer, cover more ground ocean and so on. As we have noted elsewhere, out little MCDVs, which are about the same size as a World War II corvette, can do at least as much patrolling with a crew that is ½ or even ⅓ as large. So technology does work for us, too.

Historically, since the 1950s, the rate of inflation for aerospace and electronics has been far, far higher than the general rate of inflation, something that many bureaucrats, especially those not in the defence departments, want to hide. Part of our strength lies in a technological edge over potential enemies and that edge costs real dollars ~ all those R&D costs have to be recouped.

But, there is no question: we had a more "capable" army when it had 13 battalions of infantry. Each of today's battalions is superior in training, professionalism and equipment than the one in which I served last, but the one in which I served was bigger (960 soldiers), and was a well equipped as almost any in the world, including any in the Warsaw Pact,  and we had more of 'em, supported by regiments (plural) of main battle tanks and self propelled howitzers and so on.

Ditto the Navy: a navy with an aircraft carrier, 13 new destroyers and a dozen or so middle aged frigates was more capable than one with just 12 frigates, no mater how good the frigates might be.

But defence spending in Canada has declined from over 5% of GDP, in the late 1950s, to about 1.5% of GDP now, and that is a reflection of our national priorities. And that;'s not just successive governments' priorities, that Canadians' priorities. Governments, and opposition parties, listen carefully to the people, and for our people defence spending ranks very near the bottom of any list, down with symphony orchestras and opera houses.

 

[Old Sweat]

That is not to say that we are a nation of peaceniks, but our national experience plus the accidents of geography and history and the neighbourhood we live in has given us a sense of security.

I could probably do a fair size book on the matter, but let me throw a few things on the table:

a. we were extremely fortunate in our domestic "enemies" over the last 150 years - the Fenians, Metis, FLQ and even the Oka/Akwesane (sp?) Mohawks were not really all that much of a threat and all folded when presented with coherent opposition.  Terrorism has of yet not really touched us, or at least so we notied because of our ability to ignore things;

b. when the NATO/Korea build up started much of Europe was still in tatters and our Second World War generation was young, vigourous and all too aware of the folly on unpreparedness; and

c. once Europe recovered, there was a feeling that we had done our bit, and coupled with an anti-Vietnam backlash we caught from the Americans, led to a desire to increase domestic spending by diverting funds from defence.

Compared to what we spent on peacetime defence at any time in our history except the quarter century after the Second World War, we are not doing that badly. Given the desire to slay the deficit and put our financial house in order, we probably forunate that we do not have a blatantly anti-military party in power, even if this one works on the principle that talk, not to mention pips and crowns, is cheap.

 

[George Wallace]

E.R.C.

Agreed.  Technology has allowed our aircraft, AFVs, ships, and other weapons systems to do more, with more accuracy, than previous systems; and thus do more with less.  The unfortunate problem with this numbers game is that with fewer of these more technically advanced systems, even with the greater ranges they may have, they can not be everywhere all the time.  The coverage these 'fewer' systems have is limited.  Can we cover our whole land mass, and still have the capability to project a force on UN, NATO or other missions abroad without deducting from capabilities to protect our territory?  Afghanistan is a good example in that it was a sever strain on all of the CAF, not just the Army.  We have become quite adept at 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'.  I wonder if we will soon reach that breaking point where we will actually be 'killing Peter to save Paul'?

 

[MilEME09]

  We have become quite adept at 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'.  I wonder if we will soon reach that breaking point where we will actually be 'killing Peter to save Paul'?

3rd divisions reserve units have to give up the majority of their LSVW fleet to 2nd division because theirs are rusting and breaking down more. Some are both happy and sad about that here, I don't know if the reg force has to give theirs up as well. Strategically robbing one to save the other makes us weaker in areas where we shouldn't be, and usually 10% to 15% of a fleet is down is at one time or an other having less means even less is actually working.

 

[PuckChaser]

We're waiting for 4 Div to declare 50% of our b veh fleet surplus and transferred/divested. Hopefully some of them won't be actual vehicles we use, but decisions are far beyond unit level.

 

[Rifleman62]

E.R.C.

Agreed.  Technology has allowed our aircraft, AFVs, ships, and other weapons systems to do more, with more accuracy, than previous systems; and thus do more with less.  The unfortunate problem with this numbers game is that with fewer of these more technically advanced systems, even with the greater ranges they may have, they can not be everywhere all the time.  The coverage these 'fewer' systems have is limited.  Can we cover our whole land mass, and still have the capability to project a force on UN, NATO or other missions abroad without deducting from capabilities to protect our territory?  Afghanistan is a good example in that it was a sever strain on all of the CAF, not just the Army.  We have become quite adept at 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'.  I wonder if we will soon reach that breaking point where we will actually be 'killing Peter to save Paul'?

We don't need to cover our whole land mass, the US will never let Canada be threatened or attacked. The US has been protecting Canada with the assistance of the CF since 1945.

You may not like that statement, but it's the truth.

 

[Rifleman62]

3rd divisions reserve units have to give up the majority of their LSVW fleet to 2nd division because theirs are rusting and breaking down more. Some are both happy and sad about that here, I don't know if the reg force has to give theirs up as well. Strategically robbing one to save the other makes us weaker in areas where we shouldn't be, and usually 10% to 15% of a fleet is down is at one time or an other having less means even less is actually working.

The Reserves have always augmented the Reg F for exercises, both equipment and personnel. That's part of the PRes role. Additionally, the truth is the Reg F have the higher requirement.

The Reg F support the PRes in many ways, incl schools, pers and equipment let alone their expertise.

 

[dapaterson]

3rd divisions reserve units have to give up the majority of their LSVW fleet to 2nd division because theirs are rusting and breaking down more. Some are both happy and sad about that here, I don't know if the reg force has to give theirs up as well. Strategically robbing one to save the other makes us weaker in areas where we shouldn't be, and usually 10% to 15% of a fleet is down is at one time or an other having less means even less is actually working.

All the LSVW fleet is being reviewed across the CAF and half are being divested.  It's not just you, muffin.

 

[Navy_Pete]

unfortunately its a trend that is continuing back in the 70's/80's we had what 24 destroyers I think that CBC report said, we now have 3 destroyers and 12 frigates. Now it seems due to lack of funds the navy will end up with even less ships (though the project is in the early stages and really we probably would need to wait for the next federal budget to get an updated cost). Look at the Leopard 2's we can't even 1 for 1 replace the C2's. With less and less coming with each purchase eventually DND will have to draw the line, because technological advances doesn't mean you can do more with less. With less of a fleet of vehicles/ships/air craft I argue that less just leads to more problems and said fleet being stretched beyond its limits.

The other problem with less ships is that you feel the impact a lot more when a ship goes into it's normal docking cycle.  At any given point you can realistically expect half the fleet to be either in, going into, or coming out of a docking.  You can put off some maintenance, but there is a lot of docking dependent maintenance where the impact of not doing it is potential loss of the vessel.

So when they say there will be 8-12 CSCs, once they are fully delivered (if ever), you will probably have one per coast at full operations, one ramping down and another ramping up most of the time, with the rest in various maintenance periods. 

That's assuming they ever get built; a lot of the project requirements are just really stupid, and are stuck in the 1950s design ideas.