How should we bolster the Canadian Military?
- Thread starter Lithp
- Start date
RE: How should we bolster
I went for airlift capabilities because I had to put something, but there are a whole bunch of things we need to do.
The first thing is that we need to get our politicians to look at the polls, say, "The Canadian people want us to have a peace keeping force," then give the guys running the military a mandate to create just that, a budget to make it possible, then leave them the hell alone to get the job done.
Why are politicians determining what equipment the military should have? When the hell did Martin or Harper or Layton or Duceppe ever ever serve in the military? How much time do they spend reading Jane's or even Soldier of Fortune? Do any of them even know how to fire a single shot .22?
We know the Canadian people want a peace keeping force and the ability to protect our sovereignty in the north. We, presumably, have people in the military who understand what kind of equipment and training is needed for such missions. We don't tell Revenue Canada what kind of computers to buy or Health Canada when to replace their cars, so why the hell do we do it to the military?
I went for airlift capabilities because I had to put something, but there are a whole bunch of things we need to do.
The first thing is that we need to get our politicians to look at the polls, say, "The Canadian people want us to have a peace keeping force," then give the guys running the military a mandate to create just that, a budget to make it possible, then leave them the hell alone to get the job done.
Why are politicians determining what equipment the military should have? When the hell did Martin or Harper or Layton or Duceppe ever ever serve in the military? How much time do they spend reading Jane's or even Soldier of Fortune? Do any of them even know how to fire a single shot .22?
We know the Canadian people want a peace keeping force and the ability to protect our sovereignty in the north. We, presumably, have people in the military who understand what kind of equipment and training is needed for such missions. We don't tell Revenue Canada what kind of computers to buy or Health Canada when to replace their cars, so why the hell do we do it to the military?
RE: How should we bolster
I think you hit it right on the head there. Politicians should NOT be determining what equipment is needed. You are also correct in that we have lots to do and that the government should leave the military to their own devices.
All of the above is probably the most appropriate answer for the poll - with several other options added. But I decided not to put that because I wanted to see where Canadians felt there was the greatest need for improvement.
For myself I would have to say forming manufacturing partnerships with our allies. This is because we would have access to technology and funding from a variety of sources . This would, I'd hope lead to an increase in our ability to procur the hardware we need, provide jobs, boost our economy and give us much needed credibility on the international scene.
I think you hit it right on the head there. Politicians should NOT be determining what equipment is needed. You are also correct in that we have lots to do and that the government should leave the military to their own devices.
All of the above is probably the most appropriate answer for the poll - with several other options added. But I decided not to put that because I wanted to see where Canadians felt there was the greatest need for improvement.
For myself I would have to say forming manufacturing partnerships with our allies. This is because we would have access to technology and funding from a variety of sources . This would, I'd hope lead to an increase in our ability to procur the hardware we need, provide jobs, boost our economy and give us much needed credibility on the international scene.
RE: How should we bolster
I clicked add more personnel. But I would of clicked "all of the above" if I could. We need to strenghen our military, get better and new equiptment and put more money into it. But the government does not know what to do with the military. We should have a good, strong peace keeping force but there is no political will for that.
I clicked add more personnel. But I would of clicked "all of the above" if I could. We need to strenghen our military, get better and new equiptment and put more money into it. But the government does not know what to do with the military. We should have a good, strong peace keeping force but there is no political will for that.
RE: How should we bolster
The reason that I picked aircraft is that I would really like to see a civilian aid force so our peace keepers aren't digging ditches and when they should be protecting people. An airlift capability could serve dual purpose and get civilian aid workers in and out as well as transporting the military.
The reason that I picked aircraft is that I would really like to see a civilian aid force so our peace keepers aren't digging ditches and when they should be protecting people. An airlift capability could serve dual purpose and get civilian aid workers in and out as well as transporting the military.
We need greater Naval and Coast Guard resources,so we should be manufacturing our ships here in Canada. We have a defunct shipyard here that could be reactivated to build some of the ships we need,instead of buying third hand garbage from other countries or renting/leasing from the U.S. in times of need.
RE: How should we bolster
That would create jobs too...not just while we build our own ships, but we can also build them for others.
That would create jobs too...not just while we build our own ships, but we can also build them for others.
Because the Liberals sold out on the Canadian millitary.The US and Britain say jump and the Liberals say how high!
I also agree and in answer to the poll above "ALL OF THE ABOVE". Our Military is in a sad state of repair although morale remains high and the soldiers deployed "get the job done" with little or no resources. I was in the Military from 72 to 00 and seen the steady decline in personnel and equipment.
To go on a exercise, we pushed vehicles onto the train. There was no money to fix them on base but during an exercise, different portion of the budget, so money and parts were easier to come by. The Americans, Russians fly us all over the world and we have to rent ships to transport a large number of vehicles/equipment overseas.
With just over 55,000 troops today, people want the Canadian Military to be a peace keeping force. Most politicians or the average joe does not realize that if we commit 1500 troops to peace keeping duties, you would in fact require 4500 troops. Rule right now is you deploy for 6 months and have a year back home before deploying again. So if we take on a few peace keeping tasks, the troops sure run out fast. There are more and more having problems with their marriages and depression. The pay is not too bad now but a lot more is needed after years of neglect.
AAAHHH!!!! THERE'S NO LIFE LIKE IT.......
To go on a exercise, we pushed vehicles onto the train. There was no money to fix them on base but during an exercise, different portion of the budget, so money and parts were easier to come by. The Americans, Russians fly us all over the world and we have to rent ships to transport a large number of vehicles/equipment overseas.
With just over 55,000 troops today, people want the Canadian Military to be a peace keeping force. Most politicians or the average joe does not realize that if we commit 1500 troops to peace keeping duties, you would in fact require 4500 troops. Rule right now is you deploy for 6 months and have a year back home before deploying again. So if we take on a few peace keeping tasks, the troops sure run out fast. There are more and more having problems with their marriages and depression. The pay is not too bad now but a lot more is needed after years of neglect.
AAAHHH!!!! THERE'S NO LIFE LIKE IT.......
A little further to what's above......in Sep 01, CBC interviewed Gen BELZILE and some of the highlites are.......we have about 54,000 actual troops and when it comes down to actual ground fighting troops, 9-10,000 (there remainder would be support troops (supply, drivers, mechanics, cooks, administrative....etc....).
The CF-18, based in Bagotville and Cold Lake, number about 80 aircraft with a total of actual combat aircraft - 140 (there are some planes in storage used for spare parts and because there are not enough pilots to fly them all).
The Navy has been cut back to about 9,000 personnel. There are 12 coastal/maritime patrol ships that are usually manned by the Reserve, however; because of the lack of the reservist, only 6 are in actual operation.
.....AND THEN....there is our new(er) submarines....enough said
The CF-18, based in Bagotville and Cold Lake, number about 80 aircraft with a total of actual combat aircraft - 140 (there are some planes in storage used for spare parts and because there are not enough pilots to fly them all).
The Navy has been cut back to about 9,000 personnel. There are 12 coastal/maritime patrol ships that are usually manned by the Reserve, however; because of the lack of the reservist, only 6 are in actual operation.
.....AND THEN....there is our new(er) submarines....enough said
Improving our air lift capacity is an easy one! It is down right embarrassing to have to thumb a ride to get to our destination. I'm not so sure about this 'peacekeeping', though. It seems as though a lot of people (and federal politicians) want to use the Canadian forces as some kind of public relations brigade.... they can point to them and crow about how great we are. All the while not giving them enough resources to do their job. Maybe we should concentrate on the more traditional role of a military: protection of sovereignty. On the international front we should lead efforts to reform the UN, or funding missions instead of deploying a dozen soldiers here or there....
With the possible exception of Hock, I don't think to many of us can really say how our military should best be bolstered. IMHO, the Rev came the closest to my thoughts in that we should be taking a stance of defineing what we want our military to be, have our generals etc. give us a shopping list of what they want to perform the task we define for them. Then we do our best to fill the list.
Politicians cannot totally divorce themselves from military purchases however; BMD is a good example why. Public opinion and international political ramifications dictated that decision irrespective of whether or not the military wanted in. (I'm not sure where our military stood on BMD but irregardless, political decisions may sometimes be at odds with military brass). While I think the military should have the greater say on such decisions, I do want our politicians to hold the trump card, but play it more sparingly than they have in the past.
Politicians cannot totally divorce themselves from military purchases however; BMD is a good example why. Public opinion and international political ramifications dictated that decision irrespective of whether or not the military wanted in. (I'm not sure where our military stood on BMD but irregardless, political decisions may sometimes be at odds with military brass). While I think the military should have the greater say on such decisions, I do want our politicians to hold the trump card, but play it more sparingly than they have in the past.
RE: How should we bolster
BMD is really a policy decision though...far different from saying that we peace keepers to fulfill x number of missions and regular patrols in the arctic to enforce sovereignty.
Besides, if we placed a requirement in the mandate that equipment actually be feasible, they couldn't go near Georgie's insane rocket plan...it reads like something out of an Underdog cartoon.
BMD is really a policy decision though...far different from saying that we peace keepers to fulfill x number of missions and regular patrols in the arctic to enforce sovereignty.
Besides, if we placed a requirement in the mandate that equipment actually be feasible, they couldn't go near Georgie's insane rocket plan...it reads like something out of an Underdog cartoon.
I voted for creating our own industry only because I considered it the most appropriate from the choices provided. However I do not believe that we should have a defence industry so large that it is exporting to other countries.
Being in the forces, I appreciate that people are concerned with what they can do to improve our jobs, but I consider the most appropriate solution is to actually define what we want to accomplish. Do we want to be solely deployed in peace-keeping roles, or war roles, or domestic order and soveriegnty roles, or other roles too many to be mentioned, or a combination of everything. In other words, do we want to specialize in one or more role or do we want to become a jack-of-all-trades?
In order to define our role(s) we have to be aware of our limitations - concentrating in one role more than another can actually be detrimental overall - ie. too many peace-keeping deployments overworks certain components, like infantry, to the point that should we be required to shift to a war role we are unable to meet that commitment.
You want to increase the manpower of the forces to reduce that strain - a great idea, but first of all where are we going to get the people, presently recruitment cannot keep up to the attrition rate and the size of the forces is now approximately 52,000 out of an authorized sized of 60,000 (soon to be increased to 65,000). Couple the fact that these new recruits have to be trained with the fact that we are still expected to meet all of our foreign and domestic commitments and you will quickly realize that we can barely keep up to training the people we presently have let alone expanding.
You want to buy new equipment - another wonderful idea, but again the lack of people to actually run the equipment raises another ugly fact. If we had to make sure that all of our ships were at sea at the same time we couldn't do it because of the shortage of people in certain key trades. The same conditions are true for the Army and the Air Force.
You want to purchase equipment from foreign sources - fine but you will have to depend on these same sources for the technical expertise to train our people and also to supply spare parts. Not to mention that these countries will never supply us with the best equipment that they have available.
We should build our own industry and support them with a continuous building program. Stop this idea of going out and purchasing batches of helicopters or building one class of ships in a group. Start building our own equipment, using our own R&D and technology available from Canadian firms, and employ workers over a long term so that they become proficient in design and construction (especially for things like ships and aircraft and tanks). It takes about five years to design and build a ship from start to finish - build them one at a time and we can retire the old ones on a schedule commensurate with our building program and also not lay off experienced ship builders when the ship is finally built. As well we can incorporate changes in technology and lessons learned from past mistakes into the new designs. The same sort of idea can be used in the manufacture of other weapons and their systems.
Being in the forces, I appreciate that people are concerned with what they can do to improve our jobs, but I consider the most appropriate solution is to actually define what we want to accomplish. Do we want to be solely deployed in peace-keeping roles, or war roles, or domestic order and soveriegnty roles, or other roles too many to be mentioned, or a combination of everything. In other words, do we want to specialize in one or more role or do we want to become a jack-of-all-trades?
In order to define our role(s) we have to be aware of our limitations - concentrating in one role more than another can actually be detrimental overall - ie. too many peace-keeping deployments overworks certain components, like infantry, to the point that should we be required to shift to a war role we are unable to meet that commitment.
You want to increase the manpower of the forces to reduce that strain - a great idea, but first of all where are we going to get the people, presently recruitment cannot keep up to the attrition rate and the size of the forces is now approximately 52,000 out of an authorized sized of 60,000 (soon to be increased to 65,000). Couple the fact that these new recruits have to be trained with the fact that we are still expected to meet all of our foreign and domestic commitments and you will quickly realize that we can barely keep up to training the people we presently have let alone expanding.
You want to buy new equipment - another wonderful idea, but again the lack of people to actually run the equipment raises another ugly fact. If we had to make sure that all of our ships were at sea at the same time we couldn't do it because of the shortage of people in certain key trades. The same conditions are true for the Army and the Air Force.
You want to purchase equipment from foreign sources - fine but you will have to depend on these same sources for the technical expertise to train our people and also to supply spare parts. Not to mention that these countries will never supply us with the best equipment that they have available.
We should build our own industry and support them with a continuous building program. Stop this idea of going out and purchasing batches of helicopters or building one class of ships in a group. Start building our own equipment, using our own R&D and technology available from Canadian firms, and employ workers over a long term so that they become proficient in design and construction (especially for things like ships and aircraft and tanks). It takes about five years to design and build a ship from start to finish - build them one at a time and we can retire the old ones on a schedule commensurate with our building program and also not lay off experienced ship builders when the ship is finally built. As well we can incorporate changes in technology and lessons learned from past mistakes into the new designs. The same sort of idea can be used in the manufacture of other weapons and their systems.
Re: RE: How should we bolster
I really don't see how that was any different than helicopters, ships or armoured personal carriers. My point is that we should say to our military leaders: Look we want your first priority to be defending Canadian territory, including the north. Second, X number of peace keeping missions/ year etc. How many staff and what sort of equipment do you need to accomplish this these goals? If the list comes back with: Item #7, One Missile Defence Shield. Then the politicians can stroke that one off but otherwise fill the list out as best as they can without interference. I just take it for granted that whatever is purchased is feasible and in good working order. Oh yeah, the subs :roll:
I certainly would prefer that as much equipment as possible is produced domestically rather than purchased from a foreign source. Something that I would like to see from all areas, not just the military. But I find it hard to believe that a country of our size can support building a weapons industry to supply soley our own needs. We would have to export and I don't think I would want to see us go down that road. On the other hand, I would expect that we should be able to say build all our own ships for example. I know that the ship yard in St. Catherines is hard up for contracts.
Reverend Blair said:
I really don't see how that was any different than helicopters, ships or armoured personal carriers. My point is that we should say to our military leaders: Look we want your first priority to be defending Canadian territory, including the north. Second, X number of peace keeping missions/ year etc. How many staff and what sort of equipment do you need to accomplish this these goals? If the list comes back with: Item #7, One Missile Defence Shield. Then the politicians can stroke that one off but otherwise fill the list out as best as they can without interference. I just take it for granted that whatever is purchased is feasible and in good working order. Oh yeah, the subs :roll:
I certainly would prefer that as much equipment as possible is produced domestically rather than purchased from a foreign source. Something that I would like to see from all areas, not just the military. But I find it hard to believe that a country of our size can support building a weapons industry to supply soley our own needs. We would have to export and I don't think I would want to see us go down that road. On the other hand, I would expect that we should be able to say build all our own ships for example. I know that the ship yard in St. Catherines is hard up for contracts.
RE: How should we bolster
Joining BMD was basically on the same level as international agreements like NATO. That is far different than the purchase of helicopters.
Joining BMD was basically on the same level as international agreements like NATO. That is far different than the purchase of helicopters.