Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)
- Thread starter Paul Gagnon
- Start date
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,953
- Points
- 1,010
I was reading Tom Clancey's book "Marine" and I regularly snoop around on the royal marine web site. I came to a very valid question "Why don't we have a marine corps?"
We are a three ocean navy, lots of coast line.
We have been out of the heavy mechanized businees for a while (114 Leo only add up to one regiment +)
We are constantly being fast balled into new theaters of operation.
So maybe we should come up with a expiditionary battle group plan. Of course we would need new ships to support said force.
We could convert the provider or protecteur, couldn't we?
Lets face it, the Herc is not at the top of the replacement list (it should be).
Lets hear soem ideas drom the gang here.
I have worked with USMC down at Camp lejeune in co-operative osprey '96 while I was in 2VP and it was really interesting to see how an amphibous organization some what works.
Thoughts on this? ideas? Comments? Anybody think I am right out of 'er? or just drunk?
We are a three ocean navy, lots of coast line.
We have been out of the heavy mechanized businees for a while (114 Leo only add up to one regiment +)
We are constantly being fast balled into new theaters of operation.
So maybe we should come up with a expiditionary battle group plan. Of course we would need new ships to support said force.
We could convert the provider or protecteur, couldn't we?
Lets face it, the Herc is not at the top of the replacement list (it should be).
Lets hear soem ideas drom the gang here.
I have worked with USMC down at Camp lejeune in co-operative osprey '96 while I was in 2VP and it was really interesting to see how an amphibous organization some what works.
Thoughts on this? ideas? Comments? Anybody think I am right out of 'er? or just drunk?
R
RCnapalm
Guest
Although I would like Canada to have Marines, I think we should concentrate on other things first.
For the Army, get a better amoured force; IE not LAV's with 105's on top of them (mobile gun system)
For the navy, get what every other self-respecting country has; some sort of aircraft carrying ship; IE Aircraft carrier, or amphibious Assault
For the RCAF, give our most well known airborne performers, the snowbirds, something other then 1960's relics
I conclusion, though it would be nice to have marines, we should lay the basics down first.
For the Army, get a better amoured force; IE not LAV's with 105's on top of them (mobile gun system)
For the navy, get what every other self-respecting country has; some sort of aircraft carrying ship; IE Aircraft carrier, or amphibious Assault
For the RCAF, give our most well known airborne performers, the snowbirds, something other then 1960's relics
I conclusion, though it would be nice to have marines, we should lay the basics down first.
- Reaction score
- 9,178
- Points
- 1,260
I've argued for "expeditionary forces" to fulfill the roles performed by organizations like the USMC and the RM; it is a matter of doctrine and equipment rather then making up a new branch (naval infantry).
RCnapalm, other then buy new tanks, aircraft carriers, and demonstration teams, are you going to provide anything substantive to talk about, or are you just going to give us empty rhetoric (backed up by an empty profile).
RCnapalm, other then buy new tanks, aircraft carriers, and demonstration teams, are you going to provide anything substantive to talk about, or are you just going to give us empty rhetoric (backed up by an empty profile).
B
Boydfish
Guest
I hate to point this out, but all of your Canadian-centric history education is showing very badly.
In 1859, British Columbia had a tense stand-off with the US over the US faulty interpretation of the Oregon treaty. When the British Columbian Governor General sent forces to face down the US Army, the 61 troops that arrived on the island in question were Royal Marines from Esquimalt.
Granted, BC wasn't part of the confederation until annexation in 1871. It may be backhanded and something that Canadians try to ignore, but the Royal Marines actions ensured that British Columbia was protected from US expansion. At the very least, the arguement of "We have no historical connection to them" may be valid for Canada, but not for British Columbia!
Setting aside the distant historical arguements, the reason that we don't have a Royal Marine Commando is because...the CF is modelled on the USMC. One of Hellyer's prime models for unification was the USMC. This sort of led to two factors: First, we don't need marines because the entire CF is supposed to be marines anyway. Second, part of USMC organizational doctrine is to avoid, to the point of taboo, "elite" forces within the USMC. The USMC doesn't have a SEAL/Delta/Pararescue equivilant force, instead using other infantry specialists as required. That's a big driving concept for the MEU(SOC) concept: It's "Special Operations Capable" aspect means that they train thier assault forces to tackle the SF missions that the Army Green Berets or Rangers/Delta are tasked with by the US Army.
I suspect that this template thinking also kept the Canadians away from developing thier own "Special Forces" until relatively recently. Even the manner in which the CAR was organized in concept, where troops would rotate to serve with the regiment for a few years, then rotate back to thier parent regiments, seems to be aimed at trying to prevent forming an "elite" formation.
For the here and now, I'd suspect that a Royal Marine Commando formation might not be a bad idea, especially based on the direction that the CF has been heading. The Boarding Party tasking is a traditional Marine operation, in fact, is the original Marine tasking. If the boarding party role is expanded and developed further, creating a specific trade and calling them "Royal Marines" might not be a bad idea. I'd avoid trying to develop a full-on, kick in the door, back-up Army, however.
In 1859, British Columbia had a tense stand-off with the US over the US faulty interpretation of the Oregon treaty. When the British Columbian Governor General sent forces to face down the US Army, the 61 troops that arrived on the island in question were Royal Marines from Esquimalt.
Granted, BC wasn't part of the confederation until annexation in 1871. It may be backhanded and something that Canadians try to ignore, but the Royal Marines actions ensured that British Columbia was protected from US expansion. At the very least, the arguement of "We have no historical connection to them" may be valid for Canada, but not for British Columbia!
Setting aside the distant historical arguements, the reason that we don't have a Royal Marine Commando is because...the CF is modelled on the USMC. One of Hellyer's prime models for unification was the USMC. This sort of led to two factors: First, we don't need marines because the entire CF is supposed to be marines anyway. Second, part of USMC organizational doctrine is to avoid, to the point of taboo, "elite" forces within the USMC. The USMC doesn't have a SEAL/Delta/Pararescue equivilant force, instead using other infantry specialists as required. That's a big driving concept for the MEU(SOC) concept: It's "Special Operations Capable" aspect means that they train thier assault forces to tackle the SF missions that the Army Green Berets or Rangers/Delta are tasked with by the US Army.
I suspect that this template thinking also kept the Canadians away from developing thier own "Special Forces" until relatively recently. Even the manner in which the CAR was organized in concept, where troops would rotate to serve with the regiment for a few years, then rotate back to thier parent regiments, seems to be aimed at trying to prevent forming an "elite" formation.
For the here and now, I'd suspect that a Royal Marine Commando formation might not be a bad idea, especially based on the direction that the CF has been heading. The Boarding Party tasking is a traditional Marine operation, in fact, is the original Marine tasking. If the boarding party role is expanded and developed further, creating a specific trade and calling them "Royal Marines" might not be a bad idea. I'd avoid trying to develop a full-on, kick in the door, back-up Army, however.
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,953
- Points
- 1,010
Reference the BC royal marine connection, cool ! I never knew...
RCnapalm, stand by your locker and prepare for the good sergeant to lay into you..
(1) We really should focus on trying to develop a more expiditionary forces (look at the East Timor Canada getting a ride with australia biz)
(2) If we do get amphibious assault ships then not having expiditionary forces to use with them is a moot point..(Like buying a condom when you are not going to be getting any..)
(3) One of the aims of the CF unification in hellyers time was for operational jointness (we have failed miserably), a CF marines or marine style battle groups (That would actually perform sea lift and insertion exercises every year) would be a benefit to the CF (they could be the first ones into new theaters when our bosses in Ottawa say Go) and it would benefit Canada's reputation as a nation.
(4) Snow birds are a show organization (Ultimately a PR trick) replacing their birds at the top of the list? This affects operations how? by the way, RIP Captain Selby..
(5) The CF now has a TAT (theater Activation team) based out of kingston..This IMO is a wasteful idea for the simple fact they should have combat arms with extra engineering and signals assets do the mission set ups...
(6) Concentrate on the basics? This IMO is more important to have than trying build large mechanized brigades when we don't have any where near the dollars or the resources for such organizations.
RCnapalm, stand by your locker and prepare for the good sergeant to lay into you..
(1) We really should focus on trying to develop a more expiditionary forces (look at the East Timor Canada getting a ride with australia biz)
(2) If we do get amphibious assault ships then not having expiditionary forces to use with them is a moot point..(Like buying a condom when you are not going to be getting any..)
(3) One of the aims of the CF unification in hellyers time was for operational jointness (we have failed miserably), a CF marines or marine style battle groups (That would actually perform sea lift and insertion exercises every year) would be a benefit to the CF (they could be the first ones into new theaters when our bosses in Ottawa say Go) and it would benefit Canada's reputation as a nation.
(4) Snow birds are a show organization (Ultimately a PR trick) replacing their birds at the top of the list? This affects operations how? by the way, RIP Captain Selby..
(5) The CF now has a TAT (theater Activation team) based out of kingston..This IMO is a wasteful idea for the simple fact they should have combat arms with extra engineering and signals assets do the mission set ups...
(6) Concentrate on the basics? This IMO is more important to have than trying build large mechanized brigades when we don't have any where near the dollars or the resources for such organizations.
Pugil,
I'm sorry but I take exception to your comment about 3VP in Kandahar: We sent a battalion group as part of a US led coalition brigade, not an independent Canadian formation. It was that brigade's job to provide transport for its soldiers because aviation is a brigade/division responsibility, hence Chinooks flying our guy's around. If, for some reason we had sent 408 Sqn, or all of 1 Wing for that matter they would more often than not have ended-up moving American soldiers because they made up the majority of the brigade. Besides, it doesn't seem the US Army had much of a problem giving us a lift anyway. Strategic lift, on the other hand... needs some work.
Back to topic, while I think we have the right idea in modeling our forces on the marine type organisation (everyone a rifleman first), but I don't think anyone can argue that it's actually worked out that way. Sorry for the rant, it's late...
I'm sorry but I take exception to your comment about 3VP in Kandahar: We sent a battalion group as part of a US led coalition brigade, not an independent Canadian formation. It was that brigade's job to provide transport for its soldiers because aviation is a brigade/division responsibility, hence Chinooks flying our guy's around. If, for some reason we had sent 408 Sqn, or all of 1 Wing for that matter they would more often than not have ended-up moving American soldiers because they made up the majority of the brigade. Besides, it doesn't seem the US Army had much of a problem giving us a lift anyway. Strategic lift, on the other hand... needs some work.
Back to topic, while I think we have the right idea in modeling our forces on the marine type organisation (everyone a rifleman first), but I don't think anyone can argue that it's actually worked out that way. Sorry for the rant, it's late...
I am South African ,currently living in Israel. It is important for everyone participating on this site to know that it is very difficult for governments to create new forces within a existing defence force during peacetime.
There are always those members of the government that use cost of upkeep ,higher taxes to intimidate the public and so they justify keeping the defence force small and often ill - equipped.
Canada has now the chance to take a serious look at all the forces within the defence force,and by learning from other countries that years ago had to make some very difficult decisions and learned to live with higher taxes in order to ensure security and freedom for all its people.
In view of post 9/11 and the end of the cold war it is very important for your government to take this opportunity and to draw from the mistakes and experience gained by South Africa and Israel to re-evaluate the structure of the Canadian Defence forces.
The threat will dictate the kind of forces required to achieve security.The accurate assessment of this threat ,the creation and training of those forces to combat specific threats will ultimately guarantee security for all in Canada.
The Israeli defence force is lean and mean,but we have learned the lesson years ago,.......security and freedom is not cheap !
THE FAILURE IN PEACE TIME,.......CREATE DISASTER IN WAR ! The lack of imagination and fore-sight will be measured with blood on the streets of Canada.
Train the way you expect to fight .Creating new force is only the beginning as we have learned the hard way.Forces have to be flexible,and training constantly adjusted to suite the conditions on the battle field.
Constant real-time evaluation is essential to training and creating an effective security system.
There are always those members of the government that use cost of upkeep ,higher taxes to intimidate the public and so they justify keeping the defence force small and often ill - equipped.
Canada has now the chance to take a serious look at all the forces within the defence force,and by learning from other countries that years ago had to make some very difficult decisions and learned to live with higher taxes in order to ensure security and freedom for all its people.
In view of post 9/11 and the end of the cold war it is very important for your government to take this opportunity and to draw from the mistakes and experience gained by South Africa and Israel to re-evaluate the structure of the Canadian Defence forces.
The threat will dictate the kind of forces required to achieve security.The accurate assessment of this threat ,the creation and training of those forces to combat specific threats will ultimately guarantee security for all in Canada.
The Israeli defence force is lean and mean,but we have learned the lesson years ago,.......security and freedom is not cheap !
THE FAILURE IN PEACE TIME,.......CREATE DISASTER IN WAR ! The lack of imagination and fore-sight will be measured with blood on the streets of Canada.
Train the way you expect to fight .Creating new force is only the beginning as we have learned the hard way.Forces have to be flexible,and training constantly adjusted to suite the conditions on the battle field.
Constant real-time evaluation is essential to training and creating an effective security system.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
No offense Sea Dog, but I think it's fair to say that security in Canada is already guaranteed. I doubt an increase in military spending will make us significantly safer (from what threat, I don't know). Though I would like to see an increase so that we can make OTHERS safer (peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, etc.)
Israel has a formidable military. You're right, it doesn't come cheap. But then again, we don't have the US giving us F-16's, Apaches, and 3 billion dollars a year
Israel has a formidable military. You're right, it doesn't come cheap. But then again, we don't have the US giving us F-16's, Apaches, and 3 billion dollars a year
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
ArmyRick,
You are correct in assuming I have no military experience. I am somewhat of a pacifist and only support offensive military action only when it is deemed absolutely necessary.
I suppose then, that it is ironic that I am currently in the process of applying for a pilot position in the CF. Perhaps my views will change during Basic Training.
You are correct in assuming I have no military experience. I am somewhat of a pacifist and only support offensive military action only when it is deemed absolutely necessary.
I suppose then, that it is ironic that I am currently in the process of applying for a pilot position in the CF. Perhaps my views will change during Basic Training.
- Reaction score
- 873
- Points
- 1,060
Sea-dog said:
While nobody here would seriously disagree with your comments, [and BTW, we've had more than our share of disasters in war], the last part of your sentence has me wondering if you are privy to some facts we are not aware of, unless of course you are alluding to the real possibility we might be attacked because we are perceived to be an easy target.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Ladies and Gentlemen,
This post is to clarify some incorrect information in the previous posts first off...
A Nimitz (Super carrier) class USS Aircraft carriercan hold about 90 functional aircraft, has a crew of about 3,000.[WRONG]NOT the equivalent of the entire Canadian Land Force (roughly 50,000+).[WRONG] We currently have about 65+ functional CF-18 fighters.So yes, 1 aircraft carrier has more aircraft then our entire airforce.[WRONG] The CF-18 is NOT state of the art by any means, we don't even have the "D" variant which the US is replacing with F-18E/F Superhornet variants. They are 2-3 times farther in generations of this 1 type of aircraft then we are.The computers in our CF-18's literally have as much computing power as commador 64's (back in the 80's).[ARE YOU AN AVTECH NOW?] Thier new upgrade program will see to it their about the equivalent of the american F-18D Hornet. Modern, not advanced even.
Our aircraft DO have air-to-ground capability and even the ability to use "smart" bombs (lazer guided munitions) when the aircraft is equipped with the correct hardware (an underwing electronic pod with lazer eye etc)...
As for our navy being self-sufficient, I suppose for the most part it is. If you count the only thing we can move to any part of the world and not suffer casualties is our frigates, the smallest class of warship afloat... Ohhh, shiver me timbers... :[YOU'RE STARTING TO SHOOT WAY OUT OF YOUR LANE NOW....]
Let's not get into symantics folks, but to say the least we're not a sight for sore eyes.
ABOUT MARINES:
We don't have them because as someone here mentioned before, they're more of a "shock" troop [WRONG - DO SOME RESEARCH] and we don't (not in the last 50yrs) invade other people's countries.[SEE KFOR, SEE OP APOLLO] Thier an advanced invasion force, usually the first ones to hit the beach. 1 Amphibous assault carrier of the USA carries 2000 marines, with armour support, 4 Harrier fighters[WRONG] (eventually to be the Joint Strike Fighter (VSTOL multi-role advanced combat fighter) and 16 helicopters, 4 of which are Cobra attack helicopters. In other words, that would be the type of "transport" carrier that Mr. Harper is speaking about???...
Expensive you think? YES! Would it kickass to have something like that? YES! Do we need an assault carrier... Debatable since it can be used for exactly what we need, rapid reaction force and support of NATO ops... Can we afford it?!?!?!?!? .. .... Hell no! A small aircraft carrier like that would cost approx... about $3.5 billion each..
And that doesn't even count the aircraft or amphibious assault craft.. Yeah, exactly. No chance.
So folks, hope that helps to clear things up abit. [CLEARING WHAT UP?]
Joe
Ruck on!
This post is to clarify some incorrect information in the previous posts first off...
A Nimitz (Super carrier) class USS Aircraft carrier
Our aircraft DO have air-to-ground capability and even the ability to use "smart" bombs (lazer guided munitions) when the aircraft is equipped with the correct hardware (an underwing electronic pod with lazer eye etc)...
Let's not get into symantics folks, but to say the least we're not a sight for sore eyes.
ABOUT MARINES:
Expensive you think? YES! Would it kickass to have something like that? YES! Do we need an assault carrier... Debatable since it can be used for exactly what we need, rapid reaction force and support of NATO ops... Can we afford it?!?!?!?!? .. .... Hell no! A small aircraft carrier like that would cost approx... about $3.5 billion each..
And that doesn't even count the aircraft or amphibious assault craft.. Yeah, exactly. No chance.
So folks, hope that helps to clear things up abit. [CLEARING WHAT UP?]
Joe
Ruck on!
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Funny thing is your post is so full of inaccurate information I was amazed you had the gall to post.Pte (R) Joe said:
A Nimitz class CVN embarks what is referred to as TACAIR Wing which consists of up to 20 F14D Tomcats (now being withdrawn from service); 36 F18E Super Hornets; 4 EA6B Prowlers; 4 E2C Hawkeyes; 6 S3B Vikings; 2 ES3A Shadows; 4 SH60F Seahawks; 2 HH60 F Seahawks. 80 aircraft according to my math and they tend not alter their air groups.
[quote} has a crew of about 3,000. NOT the equivalent of the entire Canadian Land Force (roughly 50,000+)Thats the entire CF not the Land element of the CF.
Hmm the last I checked our Air Force was more then CF18s. What about the Hercs, the Airbus'. the Griffons, the SeaKings, the Aurora's, the Buffalo's, the Cormorants???etc etc
Last I checked the 280s could deploy, as could the AORs and even the MCDVs have crossed the Atlantic to participate on exercises. get your facts straight please. Considering how the Chitcoutimi is still under investigation unless you know otherwise keep your comments to yourself and show some respect. It still is a raw sore down here for people that knew Chris.As for our navy being self-sufficient, I suppose for the most part it is. If you count the only thing we can move to any part of the world and not suffer casualties is our frigates, the smallest class of warship afloat... Ohhh, shiver me timbers... :
Frigates are the smallest class of warship are they? Well gee thats news to me, ever here of a corvette or an OPV? Guess not. BTW our CPFs are bigger then some countries destroyers. Again please do some research.
Which class of were you talking about? I find no matching amphib with your described aviation assets.
A
aesop081
Guest
Joe,
Either that or you have been reading books on the US military written by al-jazeera again.
US CVNs (thats nuclear powered aircraft carriers) have a crew of between 5000 and 6000;
US navy's LHA and LHD anphibs carry a marine battalion of around 800 troops.....not 2000;
You know jack sh** about the canadian navy;
LHA and LHD do not cost $3.5 billion dollars.....they are comparatively cheap since a brand new Nimitz class CVN costs around $4 billion USD;
Are you even aware of the differences between models of the F/A-18 ?
Either that or you have been reading books on the US military written by al-jazeera again.
US CVNs (thats nuclear powered aircraft carriers) have a crew of between 5000 and 6000;
US navy's LHA and LHD anphibs carry a marine battalion of around 800 troops.....not 2000;
You know jack sh** about the canadian navy;
LHA and LHD do not cost $3.5 billion dollars.....they are comparatively cheap since a brand new Nimitz class CVN costs around $4 billion USD;
Are you even aware of the differences between models of the F/A-18 ?
To: ArmyRick & Whiskey601
Hi Guys, I find it very sad that some of the members have time to bicker and split hairs about things that really does not apply to your security and safety.
Prevention is always better than cure. Know your enemy,......but most of all know your own weaknesses !
This little but very important fact we in South Africa and Israel learned the hard way.
Without looking for any possible threat,you like the US pre 9/11 would not have the foresight to either take preventative action or make timely adjustments to you defence and security systems to combat specific threats.
This, as one member suggested ,does NOT necessary mean spending more money,to the contrary it might save you a tremendous amount of money cleaning up the mess, but most of all......it might save LIVES !!
Re-structuring your Defence Force and adjusting the focus of your training to meet the new threats
based on good intelligence and knowledge gained by learning from other countries and tapping their hard earned experience.
Do not be restricted,by rules of democracies,the enemy has no rules.I sincerely hope and pray that Canada will never have to face the heardships we face day by day here in the Middle East.
Always remember : " It is always better to be SAFE,......than SORRY !
Hi Guys, I find it very sad that some of the members have time to bicker and split hairs about things that really does not apply to your security and safety.
Prevention is always better than cure. Know your enemy,......but most of all know your own weaknesses !
This little but very important fact we in South Africa and Israel learned the hard way.
Without looking for any possible threat,you like the US pre 9/11 would not have the foresight to either take preventative action or make timely adjustments to you defence and security systems to combat specific threats.
This, as one member suggested ,does NOT necessary mean spending more money,to the contrary it might save you a tremendous amount of money cleaning up the mess, but most of all......it might save LIVES !!
Re-structuring your Defence Force and adjusting the focus of your training to meet the new threats
based on good intelligence and knowledge gained by learning from other countries and tapping their hard earned experience.
Do not be restricted,by rules of democracies,the enemy has no rules.I sincerely hope and pray that Canada will never have to face the heardships we face day by day here in the Middle East.
Always remember : " It is always better to be SAFE,......than SORRY !
- Reaction score
- 9,178
- Points
- 1,260
Ex-Dragoon said:
You can say that again, one pass through with the magic-marker and I was able to find the obvious stuff.
Mr Recruit Joe, you've been around here long enough to know better then to post up stuff like this. Stay in you lane.
Sea-dog said:
We have a standard to maintain here; otherwise this place would quickly succumb to the hyenas....
Other then that, welcome to Army.ca.
