The General Hillier Years. The Merged Superthread

[Ex-Dragoon]

Very well put

 

[George Wallace]

PhilB

Although this is a bit of a hijack on your part, I will try to make a simple comparison following your logic.

The RCMP are responsible for the patroling of the highways.  Following your logic, you want them to only consider patrolling around the major centers of Alberta.  To patrol the Provincial highways, they require "Chase Cars".  Following your logic, now that they are no longer patroling the Provincial highways, but only those around the major centers, they no longer need "Chase Cars".  

Is that what you are trying to say we do with the Navy?

Our Navy would still need Deep Water ships to patrol our coasts, the same as the ships that they would require to do duties outside of our waters.  What savings are you talking about?

 

[PhilB]

You are only using some of my quotes. > I specifically asked if instead of buying things like submarines, and ships that can project our naval force abroad we focus on solely protecting our territorial waters. As I see it there are two ways a military, in general, can be. You can have a military that is designed for protecting your own country or you can have a military that is designed to project your military power abroad. Arguably a military that projects its power also protects itself domestically but I wont go there. Obviously maintaining a large, well equipped, well balanced force is expensive and is what is needed to project military force.

It seems that our military wants to be option number two on the cheap. Yes we have a naval force, but in todays modern naval warfare how effective is it without effective aircraft carriers, submarines, ASW aircraft and vessels, and replenishment ships? Yes we have an air force but have effective is it without larger numbers of fighter aircraft, the ability to refuel aerially, widespread bases to stage from, AWACS and other aerial control planes,  and strategic bombers? Even our army, how effective are we at projecting our force without the ability to deploy our troops and their heavy equipment, without our own integral air support, without the ability to resupply ourselves on a large scale? My question is should we focus on ourselves domestically, as opposed to our ability to project our force (whether of our own volition or as part of coalitions or international organizations)? I am further pointing out that in order to equip our forces for the ability of military projection the navy and airforce are much more expensive than the army. Buying large ships and aircraft is expensive. Should, and I am not suggesting that we do this, focus our army to play an international role while keeping our airforce and navy focused on protecting our domestic sovereignty? Hopefully this helps clarify.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Who mentioned anything about amphibious landing? The army, at this time, does not even have the training and equipment to conduct amphibious landings on a large scale.

Where have you been Phil?
this is part of the plan. The CDS wants a big honking ship or two to conduct amphib ops. We have stood up the SCF here on the East Coast under a Commodore with a staff of 200 to trial this concept. We had a major exercise here last month (the ITEE) with beefed up company of Vandoos on board an American ship which we borrowed...the USS Gunstan Hall.,...we refitted Sea King helicopters to take our troops ashore and had them onboard the ship with an air det. We practised a landing at Camp Lejeune in NC.
The answer to your question is....the CDS wants this capability and we're steaming full speed ahead!

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Not to derail the topic but I remember awhile ago someone was complaining that the CF did not have cool things to show for recruiting. If some of the individuals here got their wish and had an army centric military, how would you get people interested in your glorified aerial and seaborne taxi services? After all thats hardly glamourous nor interesting.

 

[Globesmasher]

I have enjoyed Gen Hillier's leadership and his style since he has been in the position of CDS.
Even as a guy who wears blue, I appreciate his operational focus and emphasis on "joint" ops.
It has been a refreshing change to have someone focus on "important" issues.

He will be a hard man to replace .... 

 

[midget-boyd91]

The only problem with Hillier doing such a good job, is that he became an image to the public eye when things in the Sandbox turned rougher than they were previously. And with some people (Hippies and Jack) not liking the idea of soldiers using their guns could easily "comingle" the two (Hillier and the mission being violent), and turn him into a replaceable officer in the case of another election, and a turnover to the Libs or NDP.

 

[a78jumper]

Replaceable in a heartbeat, look what happened to Anderson and Boyle.

Gen Hillier has done an excellent job, the best since since 1968 with the possible exception of JDex.

 

[retiredgrunt45]

We can sit here and speculate, argue and banter forever on the issues of who needs what, what we should have and how much of it we should get. The bottom line is this, the final say on who gets what and whom it goes to is made in Ottawa, by a small select group of elected officials, who hold the purse strings. If it was up to us, Canada would have the absolute best-equipped navy, air force and army in the world, but it isn’t and for good reason, it would probably bankrupt the country. So as in every democracy we get what we get and try to do our very best with what we got, because we hope it is more than what we had yesterday. Then after four years or so, average jane/joe goes to the polls elects another few select officials (hopefully the same officials who were going to loosen the purse strings for ships and planes) in Ottawa and the process starts all over again.

I finally came to realize how the Canadian public actually thought when I entered civilian life and experienced I guess one would say normal life. They have a number of expectations that they expect to have as average Canadians. These are listed in order of priority 1. Jobs & job security 2. Healthcare 3. Lower taxes 4. Safe place to live for their family 5. Home ownership 6. National security, military etc.

There are probably some exceptions to this as there are in every facet of life, but the majority of Canadians are focused on these 6 items, I placed national security as last, because most people are so focused on the first 5 items, that they don’t even give a second thought to the military.

Now back to our elected officials, who for the most part must keep average Jane/Joe happy so they’ll get re-elected. Promises are made promises are broken and average Joe gets angry and elects someone else. Seeing that we are on a teeter-totter government right now “minority” Mr. Harper will have to decide who he wants to keep happy first, average Jane/Joe, who will decide if he remains in power or the military who he already holds the purse strings for anyway. The only reason he has spent the money that he has so far, is he had no choice once he deployed our troops to Afghanistan. He couldn’t send them over with substandard equipment, so he suddenly finds a few billion greenbacks and makes it happen. Will this continue? It will be up to the average Jane and Joe to decide, whether or not Mr. Harper keeps them happy until an election is called, still remains to be seen...

Now that I’m also an “average Joe” my prospective is much the same as every other civilian trying to make ends meet and hang on to a job. I make my decision at the polls.

It’s nice to dream, but at some point, we all wake up and realize, it was just a dream...

 

[2 Cdo]

So Phil do we give the US control of our sealanes..."sorry boys we rather spend our money on the army then the navy so you guys gotta watch our backd for us"...I will never understand why you boys in green don't get the need for the other services while we do. You do not see the big picture like the air force and the navy does. At this rate you never will...

My bold modification, nice blanket statement. Isn't there another thread about respect.

As others have said the army "seems" to be the focus right now after years of neglect. The improvements for the army, while seeming to be expensive, are a drop in the bucket when compared to costs in improving or updating both air and naval equipment.
It will take some time but I'm sure the navy and air force will get some of the monies they need.

Also in reference to the navy having no money for the upcoming NATO ex, just when exactly did they notice they would run short. Sounds almost like a bit of a political stunt to get some quick cash, or incompetent financial management.

 

[Kirkhill]

Who funded "The BHS" experiment off N. Carolina last year?  And how quickly was that organized?  Did IT have an impact on this budget problem?

 

[Just a Guy]

Well despite all this side talk about funding, surely the issue isn't the Chief's brillance nor opinions on army centric or not...the real question is...will any of Government of Canada want another "Rick Hillier" as CDS.  I worry that the very reasons so many of us admire him will doom us to a pale shadow of a replacement.  A brillant leader, commander (two different things) and professional it can't be easy for the Government to have to factor him / his responses into their plans...... Let's hope he stays

Just a Guy

 

[Rifleman62]

Agreed, but whoever his replacement is, when that happens, cannot that person continue on with the same personal characteristics? Or, is there an ambitious general out there who will do anything, say anything, to be the next CDS for their own career? It has happened before.

 

[Echo9]

another Hillier as next CDS...If you ask me, the next guy who's going to get the nod will be the second McNaughton to be CDS (Leslie).  Yes, that's another army guy, and yes, that's unprecedented, and yes, the other branches are going to howl.  He'll be a good CDS, although he'll have a much more patrician approach to the job.

Not sure if they've got reason to howl, however.  One of the things that I predicted 10 years ago was that starting around now, there would be a generation where the Army becomes dominant within NDHQ.  Reason being is that the Army has basically been at war for the last 15 years, while the Air Force and Navy, while they have been busy, it hasn't been to the same extent, and their Majors and Colonels (Commanders and Captains) haven't been exposed to the pressures that the army guys have.

What did it used to take to get ahead?  Mastery of the internal politics.  Think about the dynamics that used to exist: guy, fresh out of RMC would be tagged with the label that he's going to be a general.  And, there were few surprises.  Insert operations into the mix, and it removes the bureaucratic operators who are perhaps not great war leaders.  Col L'abbe would be a great example of one of the chosen children, whose career came to a stop because of his operational experiences.  I'm not sure that there's enough of those similar experiences for Naval and Air Force officers to get the "herd immunity" in the way that the Army has.


Oh, and my review of the current CDS?  Great on the operations side, great as the voice of the force, great on modernization.  If there's a negative side perhaps he's taken too much from his experiences with the Americans.  We have different military traditions (our history is not to provide badges for combat- the tour medal says that for us), and we don't have the mass to be able to do things the way that they do, even on a reduced scale (overlaying joint commands on top of environmental commands).


last- for you guys who want fast air, you're going to have to wait for the F35 (JSF).  Based on the amount of money we've already sunk into it, that's going to be the replacement for the CF18

 

[Rifleman62]

Maybe not the next CDS, but the current CLS will eventually become the CDS. Both the CDS and the CLS lead from the front. Reminds me of the motto of the US Infantry "Follow Me". Agree with the argument re operational experience, although the Navy and Air Force senior leaders cannot in their role close with the enemy on a intimate basis. A ship captain can take his ship into harms way, but still will be a long distance from the enemy (excepting boarding parties), and the Air Force even in a close support role, is above the battlefield and does not experience the gore. I am sure there will be arguments to this.
Do not agree with the comments re the Americans. We do have different traditions. One of the most prized "badges" is the US Combat Infantryman award. The Purple Heart is awarded for giving ones blood for the USA in combat.  These awards have been discussed elsewhere. I personally favour these awards and the concept. The overlaying joint commands on top of environmental commands  simplifies the defence of North America in conjunction with our number one trading partner. I agree with it.
P.S . Bomber Command itself lost 50,000 KIA, let alone WIA, POW, missing, etc in WWII. A very high casualty rate that is not well known. That figure does not count Fighter, Tactical, Transport, Coastal Commands.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Rifleman62:

A total of 9,919 RCAF airmen died while serving with Bomber Command, whether in 6 Group or in some other unit. This figure represents three-quarters of the RCAF’s 13,498 WWII casualties [sic].

http://www.junobeach.org/e/4/can-tac-air-bom-e.htm

Almost a quarter of all Canadian fatalities (this source gives higher total RCAF dead):

42,042 men and women of Canada's armed forces died during the war : 22,917 in the Canadian Army, 17,101 in the RCAF and 2,024 in the RCN. 54,414 were wounded and 8,995 taken prisoner.

http://www.civilization.ca/cwm/newspapers/canadawar/casualties_e.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Rifleman62]

Bomber Command included the RCAF, as well as members from all Commonwealth countries. Plus some US personnel who joined the RAF/RCAF. One of the highly decorated original Dambusters, 617 Sqn, was an American who stayed in the RAF after 7 Dec 41. The figure quoted was KIA for Bomber Command, no matter what the country of origin.

A good book to read is "A Thousand Will Fall" by a Mr Pellen (?). He describes his initial training in Manitoba, and his Ops Tour.

My wife's' Uncle was a Nav in WWII. He was in an Bomber Command OTU, when he was posted to RCAF 435 Sqn,  Burma, flying Dakotas. He was the only survivor from his class. All KIA in Bomber Command.

 

[x-grunt]

Agree with the argument re operational experience, although the Navy and Air Force senior leaders cannot in their role close with the enemy on a intimate basis. A ship captain can take his ship into harms way, but still will be a long distance from the enemy (excepting boarding parties), and the Air Force even in a close support role, is above the battlefield and does not experience the gore. I am sure there will be arguments to this.

I won't argue the operational experience lies mostly in the hands of the Army right now. I will argue that operational experience is more then closing with the enemy infantry style.

Unless, of course, you mean that experience in closing with the enemy "intimately" is a useful skill set for a CDS involved in political combat. ;D

 

[Rifleman62]

I will argue that operational experience is more then closing with the enemy infantry style.

Agree

 

[MarkOttawa]

Rifleman62: My sister's father-in-law flew Beaufighters with the RAF in the Burma theatre:

Silently into the Midst of Things
177 Squadron Royal Air Force in Burma, 1943-1945 : History and Personal Narratives
http://www.burmabeaufighters.com/

Fortunately, casualties were not too bad.  After the war he transferred to the RCAF.

Mark
Ottawa