Canada's Armed Forces

[Reverend Blair]

Suspect all you want, Blue. The fact, according to polls, is that Canadians overwhelmingly want a stronger military. The division is that Alberta (and only Alberta, but not by much) would sacrifice healthcare and education for it and still demand tax cuts. The rest of the country are (by a large amount) willing to give up tax cuts but want universal healthcare and access to education.

The same polls show that we want a military that is geared towards peacekeeping and enforcing our sovereignty, but do not want it used as an adjunct to US forces.

Those are important things to keep in mind when rebuilding our military.

 

[SilentSwirl]

Re: RE: Canada's Armed Forces

The fact, according to polls, is that Canadians overwhelmingly want a stronger military.

Polls do not construe facts, they merely indicate opinions; the question is whether your interpretations of these opinion polls are accurate? I doubt it!

The division is that Alberta (and only Alberta, but not by much) would sacrifice healthcare and education for it and still demand tax cuts.

Personally doubt that the division is clear only in Alberta. If it is, prove it?

One fact, flavoured with a little opinion, is that, in order to pander to the namby-pamby whining of left leaning wingnuts, the Canadian Military has been emasculated and neglected since Trudeau got his hands on it - he engineered the initial rot that got us to this point.

As a result of this long neglect, any meaningful rehabilitation of the Canadian Military will require massive investment. One opinion is that such an investment will entail some sacrifice of other government programs, especially those that pander to namby-pamby, whining, left leaning wingnuts.

The same polls show that we want a military that is geared towards peacekeeping and enforcing our sovereignty, but do not want it used as an adjunct to US forces.

Like I said, "Polls do not construe facts, they merely indicate opinions", in this instance the opinion may be suspect because:

- Canada has only been able to neglect its military obligations because other democracies, in particular the US, have picked up the slack in defending the democratic rights of the oppressed.

- Canadians have been conveniently allowed to forget what Benjamin Franklin said about ploughshares.

If you really understood your own prejudices, when it comes to the US, you would know that the only way to effectively keep them at bay is to embrace them. Such a strategy requires a strong and effective military.

Those are important things to keep in mind when rebuilding our military.

Piffle!

 

[Jo Canadian]

 

[manda]

The army KIND of Top-heavy? You know that the forces are hurting when they send RCMP officers to Bosnia on peacekeeping missions. As for manufactuing materials for the army... Here on the Island, the old Slemon Park base has turned into a phenomenal indsustrial park that boasts large production for the Aerospace industry...I don't think it would be that much of a stretch to start producing for our own military, and yes extra to sell to other countries. Think of the bonus to the economy, which could then help with funding for the Canadian military (among other needy areas)

 

[I think not]

It's really simple. Show the world that Canada is a serious peacekeeping country. Build your military, patrol your shores, especially the North, before the Dutch grab your island :wink: , and send your troops around the world to stop wars and maintain peace.

 

[albertzz]

I guess we need mores tuff for peacekeeping missions but otherwise our security is someone else's insecurity just encouraging them to get better secured. We don't have nukes for precisely this reason. For this same reason we don't allow people to carry handguns.

 

[Armyguy]

I'm a currently serving member of the Armed forces, with 25 years experiance, however i'm new to this forum thing so please go easy on me. I thought i could contribute to your conversation.

Canada's Armed Forces used to be a force that was respected throughout the world. However today; it is often looked at as a joke, mostly by Canadians themselves. What has happened? What can be done to fix it or does it not need to be fixed?

Our armed forces is still very much respected through out the world, as a dependable,professional military force that always gets the job done. No matter what the job, or it's difficulty.

Yes it is the subject of many jokes from Canadians, mostly by those that do not know the first thing about thier own military. nor do they know of the sacrafice that todays soldiers and especially yester years soldiers have made in the name of Canada.

It is because of this that Canadians have forgotten about the military and have decided that to fix the problem will take to much time and money. They shelve thier plans hoping that the problem will go away or the military will simply disappear. this includes the tax payer as well.

[/What kind of military do we want/need? Would you accept a government decision to defer more tax dollars to it, even at the expense of a tax cut? Does anyone care or is everyone content with the US being there to defend us if anything happened.

Canada does not need a huge military, that is not what Canadians want nor do we need. However a figure around 100,000 troops would not be unrealistic.
Canadians will endure alot of things as long as it does not interfer with health care or education. Rebuilding the military will take as long as it took to destroy it...10 to 15 years...with investments in billions of dollars of equipment..i would guess at well over 60 bil would put us on track.

During the previous era, men and women were lying about age and health, basically finding any way to get into the military, because they felt they had a duty. However today I would say it is the opposite, with folks finding any reason not to serve.

The recruiting lines are full, what DND lacks is the resources to train them.

 

[Armyguy]

Someone asked for a numbers break down for DND. Below is taken off JANES military web site and is alittle old.

Army

Strength: 18,600 (active, including 1,600 women); 114 × MBT; 393 × reconnaissance vehicles; 2,370 × APCs; 58 × SP artillery guns.

Navy

Strength: 8,950 (active); 1 × submarines; 4 × destroyers; 12 × frigates.

Air Force

Strength: 13,500 (active); 130 × combat aircraft; 144 × helicopters.

Defence Budget

During December 2001, the Canadian government has ignored the recommendations of the Parliamentary defence committee, various lobby groups and the US, and increased defence spending by only C$1.2 billion (US$760 million) over five years. The defence budget for 2002-03 will be C$11.5 billion. Not only is this considerably less than various informed groups and agencies have been urging, but also includes money for security that will not necessarily go to the Department of National Defence (DND).

The DND will receive C$300 million to spend on new equipment by the beginning of the 2002 fiscal year. However, as Norbert Cyr of the Canadian Defence Industries Association pointed out: "That money has to be spent by 31 March 2002, which means the orders have to be placed over the next two to three weeks." Given that "not a lot of defence companies have goods on the shelves waiting for somebody to buy them", it is not clear what the DND expects to be able to spend the money on, or if it will be spent at all. If the DND is unable to spend it in time, it will have to be handed back to the treasury at the end of the fiscal year.

The DND will also receive C$210 million to cover the costs of Operation 'Apollo', the Canadian contribution to US-led operations in Afghanistan, to be spent by 31 March 2003. The Canadian Forces (CF) are also being given C$119 million over five years to double the size of the counter-terrorism unit, the secretive Joint Task Force 2, from about 250 to 500 personnel. However, given that the bulk of these soldiers are highly trained, non-commissioned members, and are the same personnel who are in short supply in the rest of the armed forces due to previous cuts, it is unclear how the DND can achieve the expansion. The remaining C$571 million nominally allocated as defence spending will be shared with other agencies and departments over five years for emergency readiness and expanded capacity to deal with nuclear, biological and chemical threats.

During 2001, six independent reports called for a major increase in defence spending to stabilise the CF, which are having significant problems balancing resources and commitments. In July, US Ambassador Paul Cellucci voiced US concerns that Canadian defence budgets "were cut drastically because of the end of the Cold War, and the need to put the federal budget back in balance, it has now reached the point where without significant increases the Canadian Forces could lose much of their effectiveness".

During November 2001, federal Auditor General Sheila Fraser noted that decline in her annual report to Parliament. She said the DND ``has frequently said that the Canadian Forces have never been more capable. But until steps are taken to manage equipment readiness more adequately, these claims should be taken with a grain of salt''. She pointed out that "departmental plans indicate a budget shortage of C$1.3 billion for 2001-02" over the C$11.4 billion originally allocated.

Opposition New Democratic Party leader, Alexa McDonough, called the extra funding "peanuts", stating that "anything less than C$2 billion just doesn't do what needs to be done".

Among G-7 nations, Canada's defence spending amounts to only 1.2 per cent of Gross Domestic Product, compared with the average of 2 per cent.

 

[Soviet_Guy]

Canada's Army?

What Army?

:lol:

 

[TenPenny]

Oliver' Army are on their way....Oliver's Army are here to stay....and I would rather be anywhere else than here today.........

 

[Armyguy]

Soviet Guy:
You know the army that is "still" operating in Afganistan, damn i forgot you guys lost that one did'nt you. you guys sure left behind alot of equipment guess that is what happens when you run....

 

[mrmom2]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Good one Armyguy 8) :lol:

 

[LeftCoast]

Numbers is a problem. With a 3 division (not at combat strength) army, we are stretched and reply too heavily on reserves to meet the peace keeping commitments that we make. Currently morale is low because troops are rotated back into over seas deployments far to rapidly. This hurts re-enlistment and recruiting and really destroys families.

Canada's military not only lacks numbers and equipment, but it also seems to lack a raison d'etre.

It makes sense that with the cold war ending, we no longer need to repel a Soviet tank invasion of Western Europe, and the need to intercept balistic missiles or long range bombers over the arctic is somewhat lessened. Likewise our navy - optimized for anti-submarine patrols needs to be re-roled and equiped. So some rationalization of forces and equipment is natural.

It seems the goal de jour is to transform the CF into a force than can be rapidly deployed to troubled spots for peace keeping or peace making as part of a coaliltion effort. This is noble and sensible. But we don't seem to have the right force structure or assets for this role either.

We know what the Canadian armed forces is not going to be capable of. Since 1970 when we decommissioned our only Aircraft Carrier - we have no force projection capability. That is just fine with me, we have no need to project force on our own. The lastest decision seems to be to retire, rather than replace the ancient Leopard tanks. This makes some sense in light of the endo f the Soviet threat in Europe.

However without a Main Battle Tank, we have no way to engage armoured infantry in high intensity combat. LAV III's (light armoured vehicles) with 105mm guns (or 35mm chain guns) and thin armour are far more deployable than 60 tonne tanks, but lack the protection and fire power for high intensity combat.

CF planners talk about a combined arms approach to defeating enemy armour - that would be great - but we don't have that either. Our very few CF-18 fighters are not well suited or armed for a ground attack role. The ADATS (a Canadian developed system) Air Defense and Anti Tank missile System is a good piece of the picture, but current military planning is to use these only in an Air Defense role rather than Anti-Tank role. We have no attack helicopters and our field artillery at 105mm is out gunned and out ranged by pretty much anything else we might see in the field. Current plans are to phase out the M109 155mm Paladin Self Propelled gun, replacing it with truck mounted 105mm truck mounted artillery pieces. Our large mortars are 81mm compared to everyone else's 120mm. Basically, someone fell in love with the LAV III, justified it to replace the Leopards as part of a combined armes strategy, then we never implemented or defined the other pieces of the combined arms picture.


However even with a rapid deployable force, we have no means to put them into an overseas theatre. Canada resorts to renting Russian strategic airlift aircraft. This is fine in peace time, but in a time of crisis, these assets are in high demand and simply not available. What good is a rapid deployment brigade without strategic airlift capabilities.

Likewise, we have no sealift capability. So reinforcing a rapid reaction brigade with a divisional strength force is quite impossible unless there is a modern and well equiped port (in which case we could lease civilian freighters).

Canada doesn't need to be a miniature USA. We do need an armed force with a well defined mission that is equiped and manned to execute that mission.


Procurement is also a major problem with the Canadian Forces. We tend to do one time purchases (CF-18s, CF-140 Auroras, Chinook helicopters, Leopard tanks, etc.) and then canibalize the fleet to repair and maintain an ever shrinking fleet rather than continuously purchasing replacement systems or upgrading. This means that the fleet of (aircraft, ships, helicopters, tanks, etc.) gets old and obsolete at about the same time. This means that they all have to be replaced through another major purchase. Purchasing new weapons systems however is very political, so rather than filling a need, we end up with some designed by committee compromize (like the CH-147 Griffen helicopter) that fills no real need.

What Canada really needs is professional civilian oversight or procurement and contract management at the DND. We also need to listen to our generals, admirals and air marshals and develop and then implement a real strategic vision for our armed forces.

 

[Soviet_Guy]

Soviet Guy:
You know the army that is "still" operating in Afganistan, damn i forgot you guys lost that one did'nt you. you guys sure left behind alot of equipment guess that is what happens when you run....

Hey, Gorbachev was in charge, and plus we were up against the suicide bombers, so how many wars has Canada won...hmmm, let me count now....oh I know, a big fat worthless 0.

 

[mrmom2]

F**k You You red prick why don't you go back to where you came from the most corrupt country on the planet How many wars did Russia win oh yea 0 goof we were all on the same team in WW2 moron

 

[Nascar_James]

The military is definitely one area where the Canadian gov'nt should increase spending on. They should cut back on non-essentials and ridiculous programs like the gun registry and put money into defense.

 

[I think not]

F**k You You red prick why don't you go back to where you came from the most corrupt country on the planet How many wars did Russia win oh yea 0 goof we were all on the same team in WW2 moron

:laughing3:

 

[Armyguy]

Hey, Gorbachev was in charge, and plus we were up against the suicide bombers, so how many wars has Canada won...hmmm, let me count now....oh I know, a big fat worthless 0

It's convenient to put the blame on one man. Russia's had bigger problems than Gorbachev it's whole way of doing business was flawed and is still flawed...
"Suicide bombers" give me a break the Russian Army was not trained nor equiped to fight a war in Afgan..you were outclassed by a bunch of mountain tribesmen...
I don't think you are Russian because you know nothing of russian history...Canada has come to Russia's aid on more than one occasion, alot more than Russia can say.
Canada has Never been in a conflict that it has lost. That alone is more than Russia can boast.
Your problem is your still living in the cold war, Russia is a tired old sleeping bear...That still can not figure out how to fight a bunch of mountain men armed with old rifles and donkeys.

 

[Armyguy]

Left coast:

Numbers is a problem. With 3 Brigades (not at combat strength) army, we are stretched and reply too heavily on reserves to meet the peace keeping commitments that we make. Currently morale is low because troops are rotated back into over seas deployments far to rapidly. This hurts re-enlistment and recruiting and really destroys families.

Good pionts, However there is more to the moral problem than quick tour rotations, low personal numbers, and not enough equipment to train on...other problems include bad mangement both by the goverment and within DND ,although i would say it is getting alot better with our new CDS. Most Canadians are in favour of increasing funding to DND they have yet put that voice to thier vote, or atleast strongly recommended things change...It is only the people that are going to force the goverment to improve funding.

It makes sense that with the cold war ending, we no longer need to repel a Soviet tank invasion of Western Europe, and the need to intercept balistic missiles or long range bombers over the arctic is somewhat lessened. Likewise our navy - optimized for anti-submarine patrols needs to be re-roled and equiped. So some rationalization of forces and equipment is natural.

Yes the cold war is quickly fading into the past, But the need for a armed force capable of operating in a high intensity conflict is still there. proven in the first Gulf war,and the US are finding out that they still need heavy armour vehs in Iraq today, lets not forget about North Korea or China for that matter. They are still threats and any conflict with these two is going to require forces capable of high intensity fighting.

It seems the goal de jour is to transform the CF into a force than can be rapidly deployed to troubled spots for peace keeping or peace making as part of a coaliltion effort. This is noble and sensible. But we don't seem to have the right force structure or assets for this role either.

I think the CDS new direction for the Forces is being made because it has no chioce, no funding,no numbers,and burn out of personal... when given lemons they make lemonade...We need the support of the people if Canada is going to continue to have a military force capable of anything.

We know what the Canadian armed forces is not going to be capable of. Since 1970 when we decommissioned our only Aircraft Carrier - we have no force projection capability. That is just fine with me, we have no need to project force on our own. The lastest decision seems to be to retire, rather than replace the ancient Leopard tanks. This makes some sense in light of the endo f the Soviet threat in Europe.

I disagree with you, Canada does need the ability to project force. piont in fact do you think the Dutch would have landed Combat troops up north if we had the ability to stop them...it also reflects our foriegn policies. Canada does not need a large Army, but it does need one that can operate by itself, and capable of meeting all of Canada's defense needs and foriegn polices.
The retirement of our Tanks i believe is becaus eof lack of funding and nothing else. We are the only country that seems to think we do not need new tanks to survive on any battle field.

However without a Main Battle Tank, we have no way to engage armoured infantry in high intensity combat. LAV III's (light armoured vehicles) with 105mm guns (or 35mm chain guns) and thin armour are far more deployable than 60 tonne tanks, but lack the protection and fire power for high intensity combat.

Ah yes the deployabilty statement, yes the LAV is deployable by C-130 for short distantances...and only one per A/C..and only if the Veh is stripped of everything it needs to fight...it is a historical fact that Canada's deployments have been 90 to 95 % by sea lift, and there is no one veh wieght limit on a ship...even with all our hercs running 24 hours a day we could not deploy a entire battle group faster than a ship....the renting of Chezh antonov's are only done when they are available...and in a crisis they will go to the highest bidder...

CF planners talk about a combined arms approach to defeating enemy armour - that would be great - but we don't have that either. Our very few CF-18 fighters are not well suited or armed for a ground attack role. The ADATS (a Canadian developed system) Air Defense and Anti Tank missile System is a good piece of the picture, but current military planning is to use these only in an Air Defense role rather than Anti-Tank role. We have no attack helicopters and our field artillery at 105mm is out gunned and out ranged by pretty much anything else we might see in the field. Current plans are to phase out the M109 155mm Paladin Self Propelled gun, replacing it with truck mounted 105mm truck mounted artillery pieces. Our large mortars are 81mm compared to everyone else's 120mm. Basically, someone fell in love with the LAV III, justified it to replace the Leopards as part of a combined armes strategy, then we never implemented or defined the other pieces of the combined arms picture.

The ADDATS is being reroled into A/D and Anti tank role...and will be a major piece of our anti tank defenses. add to this an updated Tow under armour LAV based veh. But any soldier will tell you the best Anti Armour wpn is another tank. Our current fleet of M109's are to old and are not paladin systems but something much older. they to truely need a replacement as well. Our current army design is not the best system but it is the armys way of making lemonade with what we have...as our goverment has either continuily cut defense budgets or not come through with the funding promised.

What Canada really needs is professional civilian oversight or procurement and contract management at the DND. We also need to listen to our generals, admirals and air marshals and develop and then implement a real strategic vision for our armed forces.

I agree with you ,that the current system is flawed.
I think the US has a somewhat better purchase system in place. DND should be choosing a product and the goverment should be deciding how much funding the military will get...has it stands now DND only submits specs it is the goverment that picks the actual vehs, yes DND does test them and submits the results to the goverment but rarely does the goverment pick DND 's chioce.

 

[HOCK]

I feel that morale in the forces is high and that most personnel love the job they are doing. True...there is a problem with equipment for training and having the proper items in the field for the troops once they land in the country of peace keeping choice. One of the biggest problems when going overseas on a peace keeping mission is the training leading up to the actual mission. It is filled with all the things the actual soldier needs to prepare for battle (weapons training, mines, NBCW, etc..) however with the quick rotations, this training goes on and on, 3 months everytime you go away. I went to Kosovo in 1999 (from Kingston) and spent 3 months in Petawawa doing nothing. The actual training, geared to the actual mission, was only 17 days. The rest of the time was poorly organized and no one was slated to give the proper training required. So for the 6 month tour, I was gone for 9 months.
Canada has been participating in peace keeping duties for years, today they rely on other countries to get us and equipment overseas. If anyone remembers, Kosovo closed down in 2000. The equipment was taken to a port in Greece to loaded on a ship for transport home. That ship (country of origin unknown) stopped off the coast of Canada demanding payment for his load. The troops come home on a budget style airline (not even Air Canada) however we did spend a night in Germany.

I feel that when we have to go on a mission, the troops should do a small work up, get the paperwork straighten out and the home base can do all the army stuff without the member leaving home.
Our tax dollars are not being spent properly to buy the equipment of Military choice, the government always seems to go with the lowest bidder or cheapest item they can get.