The Canadian Armed Forces Requirements

[CaptainCrunch]

I thought I'd throw this out there since there was discussion in the Federal Elections thread. While Defense spending isn't a big piece of this election, its something that's worthy of discussion since Defense spending is one of the vital roles undertaken by the Federal Government.

Successive Liberal and conservative governments have all received failing grades, from Pierre Trudeau's hatred and mistrust of the military, to Brian Mulroney's broken promises, to Jean Chretiens blundering of the files, the Federal Government has continually put men and woman in harms way while callously putting their lives in danger.

For a while there was hope when Harper took power, but his methods have been half measured and over focused at best, when Canada went into Afghanistan the Conservatives did a decent job of reacting after the fact in replacing the ultra terrible Iltis jeeps, upgrading the armored forces, improving individual soldier kits and training, pouring money into Special Forces Command and restructuring it to become more self sustaining, they failed on the helicopter file and the F-35 file and allowed the navy to rust.

So before I start I just wanted to throw a couple of things out there.

First of all the term Rust Out this was and is a very real term that basically will describe what happens if the Canadian Forces doesn't replace equipment and relies on older technology. Military Hardware is run hard and because of that it becomes more and more failure intensive until it fails and the Forces loses the capability of using it. We saw and continue to see this with the SeaKing Helicopters where they needed 8 to 10 hours of maintenance I beleive for every hour in the air and were starting to suffer from global failures. We're seeing this in the CF-18's who are now starting to suffer from microfractures in the air frames and the inability to further upgrade the birds to extend their end of life cycle. The best example was in the Navy where we lost our ability to service and support our own ships at sea due to the retirement of auxillary ships, we also lost the ability to form effective task forces with the loss of the Iriquois Destroyers.

For the ground forces the LAV upgrades and purchases of new ones was effectively canceled even though the LAV's were beaten up in the rough environments of Afghanistan.

The only areas that really came out ahead were in terms of transport and airlift which got out out of the stupid strategy of renting airlift and logistics. And in terms of Special Forces it was smartly re-organized into the Canadian Special Operation Regiment (CSOR) which included Aviation, Intelligence, JTF-2 and Nuclear, Chemical, Biological response forces.

NATO and our role in it

Canada is a staunch supporter and a wishy washy member of NATO. Basically the NATO alliance was formed to counter the Soviet Threat in Europe in the 70's and 80's. Since then it has evolved to be a multinational strike group that is designed to do what the UN can't which is to attempt to impose military solutions.

However the one key element of this is the domestic role of NATO.

There is a misnomer that you can adjust you're armed forces to act as a specialized element of NATO but it doesn't work that way, NATO has a requirement that you have to be a able to competently defend you're borders or at least fight a delaying action until NATO help can arrive. So be a member of good standing within NATO the standing rule is that you have to spend at least 2% of you're countries GDP on your military. In Canada's case that dollar amount would be approximately $36 billion dollars. Instead Canada will spend about $18 billion on defense this year and its expected stay about the same.

Responding to a crisis

In one of Jack Granatstein's excellent books "who killed the Canadian Military" He ran through a scenario where the Canadian Forces would be screwed if they had to respond to two domestic crisis at the same time. He ran the theory of a major earthquake in Vancouver and another domestic issue in Toronto. Due to a shortage of regular forces troops and the ability to transport them and supplies and other vital equipment, Canada would have to make a choice and then beg for help from other nations. Even with our improved airlift capability Canada would struggle in this case, and it would frankly break the Canadian Forces forever.

We saw after Afghanistan when our Prime Minister stated that after the long deployment that Canada would need a long time to rest and rearm and resupply before we could commit to a battlegroup type of deployment again, this was also noticed by our NATO allies. Frankly the days of our military being able to respond when needed and where needed are gone.

So what do we need? Frankly with the advancing age of nearly all our equipment the Canadian Forces is paying a lot more money then they should on maintenance and repair and upgrading then if they just went into a procurement and training cycle.

Navy

As stated in the election thread, Canada's Navy is at what I would call a low point. While Canada has 12 excellent frigates, Frigates don't lend to an effective navy on their own, they have very little in the way of offensive weapons, and their sensor bubbles are relatively small. As task force can project a multi level bubble over hundreds of miles (air, sea, underwater) and effectively prosecute targets within that bubble. A Halifax Frigate is a good anti-sub platform, a decent secondary anti air platform, and not great at projecting offensive power and protecting water ways.

When you add that command and control element in that can combine multiple sensors and have a ship with offensive punch (guided missile destroyer for example) you become much more efficient.

On top of that with no auxiliary ships, unless Canada rents and pays for seaborne resupply which then becomes very expensive, you are forced to take ships into port often and the ability to maintain ships with spare parts becomes more difficult.

On top of that Canada still doesn't have an effective helicopter anymore that mates with the Frigates. A helicopter can extend range, act as a targeter and increase the effectiveness of submarine hunting. With continued delays the CH-148 haven't reached the front lines, and these birds while decent aren't anywhere near as capable as the helicopters canceled by Chretien.

So where is Canada going?

They've announced the ship building strategy for this century. Which includes up to 23 new surface combatant ships at a cost of I believe $122 billion dollars spread over 30 years.

Canada will receive

8 Arctic Patrol Ships, 2 Joint Support ships, 15 surface combatants (Frigates and Destroyers) based around the Bergamimi class multisurface combatant.

Canada's submarines

Currently Canada has 3 operational Victoria Class hulls with one still fighting through problems with its weapons systems. While the Victoria/Upholder class was an interesting concept mating a SSN's capabilities with an SSK's powerplant, the Victoria class has to be seen as a failure in terms of naval strategy. With a greater emphasis on Arctic sovereignty, The Victoria would have trouble operating in the North Seas. While some deem Submarines as irrelevant they are probably one of the best intelligence gathering frames in the modern military.

More later, I'll put up some points on the Airforce and Ground Forces.

[Northendzone]

while i don't disagree with any of your points, issue becomes is what spending gets cut if military spending get increased?

healthcare needs more, infrastructure needs more....where dioes it all end?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

while i don't disagree with any of your points, issue becomes is what spending gets cut if military spending get increased?

healthcare needs more, infrastructure needs more....where dioes it all end?

I think that you're question is backwards. As it stands in the grand scheme of things we're spending less then 1% of our GDP on defense. In other words, Healthcare and Infrastructure have already benefited from less the proper spending levels, and because of that the chickens have come home to roast due to the massive equipment replacement requirements that are happening at the same time.

Just to put it this way, due to neglect, Canada has to basically replace its navy, airforce and its light armored vehicles, trucks and transports and other systems due to badly underspending.

Right now in terms of per person spending, I think Canada is third in the world, so I don't think the solution is to keep throwing money into the well, as much as how can we actually make healthcare spending work. I think that infrastructure spending for the sake of infrastructure spending is the wrong strategy.

I think out of the departments in the government, you can fairly point at defense and say that its fairly dramatic in terms of underspending.

When the Liberals committed us to Afghanistan we saw how dramatic that was when we basically had to procure proper kit, new vehicle, new LAV, upgrade our logistics and heavy lift capability, and other things.

[CaptainCrunch]

ok, before I move onto the more controversial air force, I wanted to touch back on the Navy for a second with the submaries.

The Upholder class was originally commissioned and built in the late 80's and early 90's and then recommissioned in 1994 by the Canadian Navy. Its looked upon as a cursed class because of the fire on one boat, engine troubles on another and fire control and diving issues on the third one. Submarines are extremely tough boats but they take a beating and its likely that within the next 5 to 10 years the procurement process will have to start to search for a new boat class.

there are really three options

1) Find another Diesel class of boats. The advantage of Diesel boats is that they're quit, and versatile and cheap. The disadvantage is that they have limited range and combat range due to the reliance on batteries and the charging requirements. They also don't function well as an arctic deterrence because of the problem of ice over.

The problem is that outside of Russia and China nobody is building what are considered to be long rang patrol diesel electric boats. The Germans and the French are more focused on coastal defense boats which don't have the range that's required for it to be an effective Canadian Boat. The other option is to build our own, but we don't have the infrastructure or expertise to build submarines

2) Find a AIP solution. The Germans are moving into Air Independent Propulsion systems, these systems allow boats to stay submerged for longer. The German's are going to the type 214 boat that can stay submerged for up to three weeks and has midrate of speed at 20 knots submerged.

3) Look at the Nuclear option. To me this is a non starter, it was Brian Mulroney who floated the idea of buying the 688 first flight boat from the Americans and turning Canada's submarine fleet Nuclear. While nuclear submarines are the ultimate expression of submarine power projection, Canada would have to retrain its entire submarine force and rebuild their submarine support infrastructure. While the American's would probably sell us 688i's for a song as they transition away from the 688i's to the really excellent Virginia class, it would take a long time for us to learn to operate them, especially in terms of the engineering spaces.

[CaptainCrunch]

ok, Airforce. This one should be shorter, and then I'll conclude Ground Forces some time tomorrow.

Canada began their Jet procurement process in 1978 to replace their our fleet of CF-104 Star Fighters, CF-101 Voodo's and CF 116-Freedom fighters. At the time it was decided that Canada would be better served by purchasing one multi-role high performance fighter.

Canada decided on the F-18L which later became the CF-18 after rejecting bids on the Tornado, Mirage 2000, the F14 and the f16.

The CF-18 was costed at $2.4 billion for 138 fighters in 1978 dollars.

The CF-18 has been the backbone of the airforce since 1982 and 33 years later the fleet is starting to decay as it is now down to 79 operational aircraft.

The CF-18 can't be upgraded any further, and its starting to develop faults as the airframes erode.

Canada announced its intention to buy 65 Lockheed Martin F-35 in 2010 as it shows its strategic intent is to move to a smaller airforce with advanced capabilities.

While Canada announced its intention it hasn't signed purchase agreements. One side benefit of this deal is that Canada's involvement in the development of the plane has bought about $600 million in aerospace industry contracts into canada.

Anyways. The F35 is what I would call a generation 4.5 fighter, which means that it combines, Stealth, Information sharing and advanced sensors, performace and sustainment. While it lacks some of the features like the super cruise of the F-22.

Because Canada is going to smaller airrforce and is going to have the expectation of a 30 to 40 year lifespan it in my mind eliminates a lot of the generation 4 fighters from the competition.

In other words, Canada can not go with the sticker option, they need to go with the plane with the longest technology wheels and the highest force multiplier.

With the F-35 you can view the entire battlefield and data link effectively to see far over the horizon. While the F-35 isn't a superb dogfighter, in the day and age of advanced sensors and super smart missiles its going to be rare that you see a furball anymore as more airforces look to go to a shoot and re-position strategy. The other buzz word is the efficient use of air to ground ordinance while the F-35 isn't a bomb truck like the CF-18, it can carry the latest generation ordinance and place it very precisely.

While there is some concern over the single engine design, the new generation engines have a much lower failure rate then most two engine designs, and when you combine that with a faster replacement ability its a good option.

There are still problems with the F-35 in terms of the helmet and some other sensor and communication issues.

Here's the problem depending on the role that we choose to use it in.

The F-35 is a very good design as a multirole fighter. In air to air its going to avoid dog fights and either try a stealth approach or shoot you in the face from distance and avoid dog fights.

As a ground attack fighter its a very good bird.

If Canada is concerned about dog fights, then we have to look at a split air force and bring in a multirole fighter like the F-35 and a pure dog fighting plane, I'm not a fan of that because a single unified airforce eases up logistics and maintenance requirements.

I'm also not a fan of buying older tech like the Super-hornet because these planes have to last 30 years and Russia, China, and other nations are working on their generation 4.5 to 5 programs hard.

We could go back to procurement and start over again but it would be a 10 year process and I'm not sure that the CF-18's are viable for another decade.

Currently the other issue facing the Canaadian Forces is in terms of transport helicopters, Canada upgraded their heavy lift Chinook fleet in 2014 however the 100 Griffin Helicopters which are used to transport troops and supplies in a modern battlefield are reaching their end of life in 2021 and Canada needs to begin to look for replacement aircraft.

As a special Forces transport these are an underwhelming aircraft and they are short in terms of a low level battlefield transport, but they will have to be replaced within the next decade. The good news is that these birds can probably be replaced with an off the shelf product like a UH-60M

[Harry Lime]

Would the Gripen NG be considered a 4.5 generation aircraft? Is there a list of post fourth generation planes that are operational and not speculative?

[Doodlebug]

Captain, you might have mentioned this previously..but I would be interested to know your background in the Canadian Forces. Obviously you have a weath of information, would just like to know the context. Thanks.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Would the Gripen NG be considered a 4.5 generation aircraft? Is there a list of post fourth generation planes that are operational and not speculative?

The Jas 39 is a generation 4 fighter

It lacks stealth capability

This might help

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth...on_jet_fighter

generation 5 fighters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth-...on_jet_fighter

they have the F-35 as a generation 5 because of its stealthy has advanced Data and Avionics and can use next generation ordinance

I'm not sure that I agree that the F-35 is a full generation 5 fighter because the benchmark for generation 5 is the F22 which is a higher performance jet and has super cruise abilities.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Doodlebug

Captain, you might have mentioned this previously..but I would be interested to know your background in the Canadian Forces. Obviously you have a weath of information, would just like to know the context. Thanks.

Just to keep it general

4 years of infantry, during the bad old days at the end of the cold war, plus some work with the UN.

But the whole military aspect has always been of interest, I've taken a lot of military history courses.

Plus I read a ton and pay attention to what's happening out there.

[Doodlebug]

Whats the cost of a Eurofighter Typhoon vs the F-35?

http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.c...oon-fight.html

[CaptainCrunch]

Just to make things interesting if you look at the F-35



vs the Chinese J-31

Spoiler!

They're remarkably similar

China is throwing a lot of money into 5th generation fighters in terms of the J-20 and J-31 because they feel that a 5th generation fighter like the F-22 will inflict a 30-1 ratio loss on a modern battlefield.

China is also modifying the J-31 as a naval variant to launch off of the decks of their carriers

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Doodlebug

Whats the cost of a Eurofighter Typhoon vs the F-35?

http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.c...oon-fight.html

Per unit cost is about $91 million pounds

which is about $184 million (canadian) (I think, I suck at math)


The F35 looks like its in the 98 to 116 million dollars per copy range U.S.

So cost wise they seem to be pretty equivalent.

edit, those are the outright estimated purchase costs per plane, not including other ancillary costs.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

while i don't disagree with any of your points, issue becomes is what spending gets cut if military spending get increased?

healthcare needs more, infrastructure needs more....where dioes it all end?

Raise taxes. GST back to 7%, an extra % or two on everyone's personal income tax.

Harper cut a lot of things to make the budget work. Ralph Klein set our infrastructure back 20 years just to make things work. Or you could just raise taxes to show that the cost of accomplishing large projects (like military or infrastructure) has increased.

These are tough decisions that our leaders have to make. I'll be the first to vote for someone that suggests broad based tax increases to pay for the necessities of a functioning country.

I'd rather someone suggest a 2% GST increase rather than someone claiming we're gonna fund our entire military by closing tax loopholes and finding efficiencies.

[Slava]

I would just note that with the F35 the procurement process was put on hold in 2012. The announcement today by Trudeau doesn't cancel the contract, because there is no contract. The reality is we have a lot of needs (planes, helicopters and all kinds of non-military issues of course), and the F35 is just not viable. Would it be awesome? Sure. But unless a government plans to invest substantial dollars and likely cut from somewhere else, I can't see it happening.

I mostly wanted to point out that there isn't a contract and frankly it doesn't appear as though the CPC was going ahead with this either, despite their comments today).

[Fire]

What makes a GST of 7% the perfect number and not 5%?

[Kavvy]

Too lazy to read through the thread, but what is our vet funding like?

i.e. if they have PTSD cant they get as much help for free as they need?
I would easily support a tax increase for this type of stuff.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

Too lazy to read through the thread, but what is our vet funding like?

i.e. if they have PTSD cant they get as much help for free as they need?
I would easily support a tax increase for this type of stuff.

In a word, no. Veteran's affairs has went away from giving pensions to soldiers for injuries and went to one time lump sum payments. If I'm not mistaken a soldier who lost a leg got $60,000 rather than a lifelong disability pension. The government also closed down about a dozen Veteran's affairs offices and told them to go to service Canada offices instead.

[Zulu29]

On the F-35 situation. I believe Trudeau has it right and I sincerely hope that we take Dassault up on its offer to buy the Rafale, get full tech transfer and build them here in Canada. That would easily offset any manufacturing loss we might (Lockheed hasn't given us guaranteed work yet) lose by not picking the F35

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

In a word, no. Veteran's affairs has went away from giving pensions to soldiers for injuries and went to one time lump sum payments. If I'm not mistaken a soldier who lost a leg got $60,000 rather than a lifelong disability pension. The government also closed down about a dozen Veteran's affairs offices and told them to go to service Canada offices instead.

Wow that sucks.

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

Too lazy to read through the thread, but what is our vet funding like?

i.e. if they have PTSD cant they get as much help for free as they need?
I would easily support a tax increase for this type of stuff.

If, in your example, PTSD leads to a medical release, the soldier will receive two year's salary from the military insurance - less tax, of course. The battle then begins with Veterans Affairs. As the other poster noted, there is no more disability pension; it is a lump sum payout, and it is a percentage of, I think, $250K. Obviously, the more serious condition will warrant a higher percentage.

When it comes to Veterans Affairs, whether it is PTSD or another medical condition, it has to be proven that the condition was a result of military service. With PTSD, that is somewhat easier to prove. Many other conditions? Not so much. I know many guys dealing with VA with no luck.

Sure, there are programs such as educational upgrading, but if you are 54 years old and are facing a prospect of a medical release, a disability pension would be far more attractive than a lump sum payout and academic upgrading. If you are younger, perhaps the lump sum and the academic programs make better sense.

What the system needs to do is offer flexibility to suit the many situations that are out there.