The General Hillier Years. The Merged Superthread

[MarkOttawa]

I think there is a simple reason why Army-focused expenditures are the priority.  The Canadian government (Liberal or Conservative) has ever since Bosnia/Croatia used the Army abroad in profligate fashion as a centre-piece of its foreign policy.  There is no reason I can see to suppose that will change.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Rifleman62]

Long ago, when I joined up, I was taught that the whole purpose of the Army was to support one person, the Infantryman, they who close with the enemy and engage with deadly force, one on one. Arty, tanks, engineers, Int, logistics, mechanics, cooks, clerks, etc,  role is to support the Infantryman to assure success. I was also taught that the Air Force and the Navy support the Army in its role of supporting the Infantryman. If you do not have an Infantryman to support, you don't need an Army, Air Force or Navy. Lets stop this silly scrapping. I have been fortunate on several occasions to deal with the the current CDS, as well as two others. Gen Hillier is an absolute stand out. He needs all in the CF to do their job to the best of their abilities, to be loyal up, down, and sideways. We are one, the CF.

 

[Gunplumber]

Rifleman 62,
Very, very well put. We should remeber this more often.

 

[x-grunt]

If you do not have an Infantryman to support, you don't need an Army, Air Force or Navy. Lets stop this silly scrapping. 

Not to get too far from the CDS topic - who btw I think is a stupendous leader, and much overdue in the CF world. Hillier has proven he is the right guy for this job.

But I have to disagree with the quoted statement. The idea that all services only support the grunt is just not right. All Army ultimately supports the infantry, and Air and Sea can and do indeed support Land ops. But it's not the only thing they do. Until infantry can take and secure the EEZ (as one example) then I submit the Navy (and Air) have other priority jobs that have little Army about them.

And I completely agree, let's stop the bickering and agree that all services have an important place, and each deserves support in turn. Right now, the Army has priority, which seems right for now. Maybe another service will lead in engaging an enemy in the future, but today it's an Army show.

 

[Kirkhill]

I am starting to understand the fondness in American circles for using made up names, acronyms and paragraph long descriptions instead of names that evolved when the Romans rode horses, the Queen of Spain thought that her young pikemen that were "seen and not heard" looked like infants and ships were sailed by sailors under sail.

There are those that meet people face to face, either on land or on the deck of a boat (haven't quite figured how to arrange an air to air transfer yet)
There are those that specialize in patrolling air, seas and land (cities and open spaces)
There are those that specialize in blowing things up from a distance
There are those that specialize in blowing things up by getting "up close and personal"
There are those that specialize in moving all the other specialists around and making sure they have what they need to get their jobs done
There are those that specialize in Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence
There are those that specialize in patching all the others up.

Damfino anymore which job is an Army, Navy or Air Force job and which ones should be riding horses.

PS:  I agree.  General Hillier is doing a good job.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Nobodies bickering....we're having a discussion. It is not the main role of the Navy and Air Force to support the Infantry...sorry. The Navy's main job is to secure the seas for those who pass upon them on their lawful occasions.....The Air Force's main job is to secure the airways of North American and Canada (NORAD)...last I checked those weren't Army jobs or priorities. Yes we have to work together and yes the Joint Task Forces is a good idea and is helping us to work together better but there is still lots of stuff on a day to day basis that we do because we go to sea in ships that has nothing to do with the Army world and is not very well understood by that world either.

 

[OnTrack]

"JArmy"  Joint with an Army flavour.

 

[aesop081]

Long ago, when I joined up, I was taught that the whole purpose of the Army was to support one person, the Infantryman, they who close with the enemy and engage with deadly force, one on one. Arty, tanks, engineers, Int, logistics, mechanics, cooks, clerks, etc,  role is to support the Infantryman to assure success. I was also taught that the Air Force and the Navy support the Army in its role of supporting the Infantryman. If you do not have an Infantryman to support, you don't need an Army, Air Force or Navy. Lets stop this silly scrapping. I have been fortunate on several occasions to deal with the the current CDS, as well as two others. Gen Hillier is an absolute stand out. He needs all in the CF to do their job to the best of their abilities, to be loyal up, down, and sideways. We are one, the CF.

Although i agree with the sentiment, this is looking at things in a rather simplistic fashion.  Both the Navy and AF have missions which support the national objectice but have no relation to the army.

 

[retiredgrunt45]

IN HOC SIGNO, i also agree totally with your setiment, we are losing our air and sea capability and i can see were a sailer would be fustrated with the present state of affairs. Our frigates as advanced as they are are aging and probably need repairs of refits, the sea kings are from a by-gone era and need replacing pronto and the air force needs new fighters and transport planes.

I would like nothing better than to see "big honkin" new fighter planes provide air support for our troops or brand new helicopters transport our troops or new war ships with some teeth, patrolling our coast line keeping the unwanted out of our waters, believe me i can understand your fustration. On the army side i've been there, working with equipment that was broken or unservicable most of the time, were our best piece of kit was a roll of trusty gun tape. It took a mission like Afghanistan for the government to see what a sad state our military was in and they were forced to do something about, piecemeal at the moment, but its a start nevertheless.

I just hope for Canada's sake that the money being spent at present on the army, will continue to be spent on the navy and airforce in the future. I think some eyes have been opened in Ottawa and it will happen.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

IN HOC SIGNO, i also agree totally with your setiment, we are losing our air and sea capability and i can see were a sailer would be fustrated with the present state of affairs. Our frigates as advanced as they are are aging and probably need repairs of refits, the sea kings are from a by-gone era and need replacing pronto and the air force needs new fighters and transport planes.

I would like nothing better than to see "big honkin" new fighter planes provide air support for our troops or brand new helicopters transport our troops or new war ships with some teeth, patrolling our coast line keeping the unwanted out of our waters, believe me i can understand your fustration. On the army side i've been there, working with equipment that was broken or unservicable most of the time, were our best piece of kit was a roll of trusty gun tape. It took a mission like Afghanistan for the government to see what a sad state our military was in and they were forced to do something about, piecemeal at the moment, but its a start nevertheless.

I just hope for Canada's sake that the money being spent at present on the army, will continue to be spent on the navy and airforce in the future. I think some eyes have been opened in Ottawa and it will happen.

+1

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

IN HOC SIGNO, i also agree totally with your setiment, we are losing our air and sea capability and i can see were a sailer would be fustrated with the present state of affairs. Our frigates as advanced as they are are aging and probably need repairs of refits, the sea kings are from a by-gone era and need replacing pronto and the air force needs new fighters and transport planes.

I would like nothing better than to see "big honkin" new fighter planes provide air support for our troops or brand new helicopters transport our troops or new war ships with some teeth, patrolling our coast line keeping the unwanted out of our waters, believe me i can understand your fustration. On the army side i've been there, working with equipment that was broken or unservicable most of the time, were our best piece of kit was a roll of trusty gun tape. It took a mission like Afghanistan for the government to see what a sad state our military was in and they were forced to do something about, piecemeal at the moment, but its a start nevertheless.

I just hope for Canada's sake that the money being spent at present on the army, will continue to be spent on the navy and airforce in the future. I think some eyes have been opened in Ottawa and it will happen.

Just to clarify..the CPFs do have teeth...those 8 Harpoon SSMs are not just for show..... :

 

[PhilB]

I agree that each of the three services has their own independent role, and I also agree that Canadian sovereignty is a major priority for the Navy and Air force in particular. The comments to follow are not intended to start a fight or be disrespectful. Being in the infantry I know very little about either of the other services. All of that being said here it goes,

My question is one of viability. Both the navy and the air force are, from my understanding, geared mainly at fighting conventional warfare (one country against another). I understand that each service is used for other things (policing our waters and airs against smugglers, illegals etc) but it seems that the proposed equipment purchases from each service are geared towards increasing conventional combat capability. With that in mind do the naval and air capabilities we currently have measure up to likely opponents we might have to face in a traditional, conventional war? I am not talking about level of training or debating the merits of one piece of equipment over another. All things considered in conventional war numbers matter, do we have even close to enough resources to compete in a war? Secondly if the answer to the above question is no, then as a country, can we even afford to equip these services to measure up to our opponents? The army can be equipped to a higher level than the air force or navy
(rifles and artilelry pieces are MUCH cheaper than new fighters, bombers, or ships) for much less. All of that being said, where should our priorities lay? If we cannot, on an economic level bring these services to needed conventional levels should we shift the focus of these services? Should the Navy focus solely on maritime coastal defense and troop movement? Should the Air force shift to strategic and tactical airlift and rotory wing ground support? These are just thoughts, lets discuss, hopefully, in an objective manner.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

So when you do sail an amphib group to some trouble spot are you going to hope that our allies will be able to send ships the have an AAD/AWW and an ASuW capability or are you going to cross your fingers and hope that coastal defence force with OPVs and maybe corvettes will be able to prevent the bad guys from sinking those HVUs with troops and materiel onboard?  Not to mention how will you resupply these ships when they are sailing?

 

[MarkOttawa]

To repeat a comment on the Ruxted Group article:

A New World View
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/56768.0.html

"a properly unified military force"--as in the US Marine Corps?   With of course due recognition of the need for distinct naval and air force capabilities for territorial surveillance and sovereignty protection (and other assigned missions such as aerial SAR).

Ex-Dragoon: I think it most unlikely that we will be engaged in amphibious operations on our own.  If we can provide the BHS (with JSSs for resupply) plus the troops and some helos, I would think our allies would be happy to provide almost all the other naval and air support needed in combined ops.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[PhilB]

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. If we are going to get into the what if arguments, are we going to rely on our allies for carrier support so that our floating TF has aircover? Same deal on landing on hostile shores, our experience in Afghanistan has proven that close air support is essential, are we going to rely on our allies for that as well? If we are ordering up replenishment ships we may as well order up some carriers while we are at it.

I am asking whether as a military we need to narrow our focus. We are not the U.S., we are not the U.K. we do not have a national focus on our military and as such spending isn't there, more so than just the spending, the will to spend doesn't seem to be there. Do we continue to try and be a military that can accomplish every possible task, and does so with mediocre equipment and trg as a result, or do we focus on more specific tasks?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Maybe but can you predict the future....our allies like the fact that we can contribute ships that shoot. It makes them able to put their assets where they want them, no nursemaiding a country that relies on others to protect its ships and troops...

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

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...

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

To lose air force and naval capabilities is like the army losing the tank all over again. Totally a stupid and irresponsible decision. Whats wrong with balanced forces, it can be attained. Look at Germany

 

[PhilB]

This is what I hoped to avoid, everyone getting angry. It seems that when topics like this are broached people tend to think of it as a personal attack. I did not insinuate that we give control over to the U.S. but explain to me how our navy protects our shipping lanes, and if, objectively in a war, they would be able to do so successfully. This is not meant in a sarcastic tone or anything, I am legitimately asking because I do not know, and as such cannot form an opinion if, in war they could or not. What I mean is that if, with current levels of funding and equipment they cant, how much will it cost to ensure that they can? If we are not willing to pay that price then re focus. In the above posts I mentioned that maybe our navy should focus solely, more or less, on protecting our territorial waters. Wouldn't a move like this free up more budget for the navy to have better equipment to operate within that context?

I am not suggesting losing our air force or navy capabilities. What I mean is, for example, what is the purpose of spending millions of dollars on fighter jets, but still not having enough to compete with an enemy? Are we spending this money in a futile effort? Is the choice spend billions more to equip us with enough high tech fighters to compete against a potential enemy or re focus the air force, spend the money on other things and rely on our allies, with an already in place capability to fill this role for us?

 

[aesop081]

gents........the army being the operational focus at this time, the need was pressing for new gear...i can't debate that.  The new kit that both the Navy and AF are getting is designed for one thing : support the army's operations.

But further to that, the AF and the Navy have missions independent of the army. Those missions cannot be ignored.  Unless we are willing to let the US decide who comes in and out of our airspace and tritorial waters, these missions cannot be neglected.  Wether you army folks like it or not, we are a maritime nation and must behave as such.  The army does not patrol the North, does not patrol canadian teritorial waters and does not patrol canada's EEZ.  The army cannot enforce canada's imigration laws at sea, cannot conduct SAR operations, Cannot do environmental monitoring and does not assist the RCMP in anti-drug operations.

Overseas, the army cannot conduct embargos, participate in Multi-national naval operations (whatever they may be). Another aspect is that, in a world of alliances, we must be able to demostrate that canada will play its part in collective defence.  For that we require not only land forces but also capabale Naval and air forces.

This is what I hoped to avoid, everyone getting angry.

Don't worry, i'm not angry.  I just dont understand why you cannot look beyond the army.

I did not insinuate that we give control over to the U.S. but explain to me how our navy protects our shipping lanes,

Every country in the world has a navy in their waters : theirs or someone elses.  if we dont put a Navy in our waters, the US will....and then they get to decide who and what happens in them...simple enough ?

I am not suggesting losing our air force or navy capabilities. What I mean is, what is the purpose of spending millions of dollars on fighter jets, but still not having enough to compete with an enemy? Are we spending this money in a futile effort? Is the choice spend billions more to equip us with enough high tech fighters to compete against a potential enemy or re focus the air force, spend the money on other things and rely on our allies, with an already in place capability to fill this role for us?

Rely on our allies ?  Do you recal the fiasco that was going on when Turkey wanted NATO to deploy there as a security measure during OIF ?  Alliances are about politics and we can NEVER assusme that our allies will be there.