Canada's new defense thinking!

[HOZ]

An article from Jack Granatstein: Alberta, not Quebec drives Canada's defense policy.

My first thought on that is,will we be bombing OPEC back into the dark ages soon?

Article snippet

But for the Harper government, the new reality is that Alberta attitudes drive defence policy, not Quebec opinions. Virtually every opinion poll over recent decades has shown attitudes in Alberta consistently more hawkish than quasi-pacifist opinion in French Canada. The Tories have little support in Quebec, and the last election confirmed that they don’t need Quebec M.P.s to create a parliamentary majority. The coming addition of some thirty more seats in the House of Commons for Ontario and the West will entrench this new reality. In the circumstances, the Conservatives have a free hand to build the defence and foreign policy that suits their view of the world. And they will.

[Hemi-Cuda]

the one thing i'm most thankful for now that Harper has a majority is that his efforts to repair our military will increase now. after so many years of dismantling at the hands of the Liberals, finally Canada is becoming a recognized player on the world stage again. and it's not like i want us to spend an insane amount of GDP on defense like the US does, but there is no reason that our men and women serving our country can't have up to date equipment and solid support from the government

i just hope that the next PM takes the northern border security as seriously as Harper does, because that will become a big issue in the next 10-20 years

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

the one thing i'm most thankful for now that Harper has a majority is that his efforts to repair our military will increase now. after so many years of dismantling at the hands of the Liberals, finally Canada is becoming a recognized player on the world stage again. and it's not like i want us to spend an insane amount of GDP on defense like the US does, but there is no reason that our men and women serving our country can't have up to date equipment and solid support from the government

i just hope that the next PM takes the northern border security as seriously as Harper does, because that will become a big issue in the next 10-20 years

Couldn't agree more. The Soviet Union 2.0 is no benevolent neighbour. That said IF, and only if, military spending can avoid the "Jobs for Quebec" fixture it has been (see F35 for future FAIL) then it could possibly not be colossally wasted spending we have seen in the past.

[CaptainCrunch]

Granatstein is a great read for anyone who has an interest in Canadian Defense Policy.

Who's war is it anyways looks at the War In Afghanistan and Canada's internal conflict when it came to that war. It also looks at the rust out of the Canadian Forces and its effect on our foreign policy and ability to respond to internal crisis.

Who killed the Canadian Forces looks at the Canadian Governments treatment of the forces since WW2 and the destruction of the ability for the Canadian Forces to be an effective force, of course this book was released before Harper came to power. But it looks at every Prime Minister including a very negative view of Mulrooney, Chretien and Trudeau, it also looked at the imbalance of Quebec Power and the effect of pacifism on government policy.

He also wrote a full history of the Canadian Forces that's a must read.

Quebec has been anti forces since WW1, with their limited support for Canada in WW1,which to an effect was justifiable looking back on that war. Their anti WW2 stance including open support for the Vichy regime in Paris and their pacifist sentiments, except at the time of Quebec Separatism where the separatist's secretly negotiated with French senior officers to build a Quebec Army in the event of a Yes vote.

There's no doubt that Harper has taken a much more pro Canada defense policy, and it came from a meeting that happened between Paul Martin and George Bush, where Bush acknowledged Canada's friendship, then basically stated that one day an American President will come along who will state that they are sick of paying for Canada's defense needs. They took it forward further when Canada under the Liberal's stepped out of the Ballistic Defense Shield, then demanded that Canada had a seat at the policy table.

Once Harper came to Government he decided that one of the things that was needed to rebuild Canada's friendship with the States and remove the concept in the congress and Senate that Canada was an anti american country that refused to pull its own weight in terms of North American defense decided that he had to rebuild Canada's forces.

He also decided that Canada couldn't depend on other countries planes and ships to transport Canada's troops and equipment to other nations when called upon.

But while Harper has done well in refunded the Forces and rebuilding morale, He's only slowed down the rust out of the Forces not stopped it.

There are a number of key issues that need to be looked at

But first, what has the government done well

First of all, they ended the use of the terrible Iltis jeeps that put a ton of money into Chretien's family pockets, and replaced them with the G wagon.

The Leopard II's that we leased then purchased from the German's give us tanks that can function effectively on the battlefield.

The F-35's the best selection to replace the near end of life F-18's

Pushing through new helicopters for the Navy and Search and Rescue

The puchase of new heavy lift and medium lift transport planes.

What needs to be done.

The Canadian Forces is under strengthed, especially in two key areas. One being actually front line troops in the Army, we need to fit out at least another Battalion. We're short on sailors in the Navy.

Canada has 3 Iroquois Class Destroyers, but these ships are 40 years old and far past the end of life. These ships are critical as part of our Maritime strategy as they are command ships which allow us to not only form task forces with our Halifax Class Frigates but also to work with the complex data links in U.S. Navy Task force. Also while the Halifax Frigates are nice ships, they are frigates and lack the punch that the Destroyers, especially guided missile class destroyers would bring to the table.

We need to accelerate the retirement of the Sea Kings and accelerate the EH 101 deployments.

The Victoria Class Submarines have the potential to be excellent little boats, which combine a diesel electric propulsion system with SSN level quieting and electronices, and they are slowly coming on line after some severe problems, however they are not really effective for arctic patrols. As desirable as nuclear submarines would be, that will never happen, so we need to look at alternative measures of quiet patroling up north.

Canada's army needs to improve its artillery and long range anti air capabilities.

In terms of arctic policy, we need to really build more coast guard armed ice breakers, improve our coastal defense fleet (more sailors would help) accelerate the deep harbors, and move away from the Rangers as the primary response units in the arctic and form a dedicated battalion of Northern harsh weather capable troops and fighting vehicles.

Finally I'm not against unification of the military, and the early move to go to the RCAF and RCN and Canadian Army was a good move especially for Espirit de corp, but we need to move back to distinctive uniforms and get rid of the bus driver uniforms.

On top of that the Frigates are at half life and we need to start thinking of their future, we need new Joint Support Ships, we need to look at new Light Armored fighting vehicles and recce vehicles and we need to improve our battle field intelligence and strike capability through the use of unarmed and armed drones.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Couldn't agree more. The Soviet Union 2.0 is no benevolent neighbour. That said IF, and only if, military spending can avoid the "Jobs for Quebec" fixture it has been (see F35 for future FAIL) then it could possibly not be colossally wasted spending we have seen in the past.

Speaking of Quebec...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2167403/

Good to know our equalization payments are subsidizing the Quebec mafia.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The Victoria Class Submarines have the potential to be excellent little boats, which combine a diesel electric propulsion system with SSN level quieting and electronices, and they are slowly coming on line after some severe problems, however they are not really effective for arctic patrols. As desirable as nuclear submarines would be, that will never happen, so we need to look at alternative measures of quiet patroling up north.

Canada's army needs to improve its artillery and long range anti air capabilities.

Questions:
- Why won't nuclear subs ever happen? Cost/crew/harbour requirements?
- Why can't the F18s/F35s take care of pounding ground targets and intercepting aircraft? (What role do artillery/long-range AA serve?)

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SebC

Questions:
- Why won't nuclear subs ever happen? Cost/crew/harbour requirements?

You require a whole different infrastructure to take care of the reactors on a submarines, and a whole different class of sailors to run and maintain them. instead of diesel mechanics you need people with a masters level in nuclear engineering. You would also need to create a whole new training and safety system.

Originally Posted by SebC

- Why can't the F18s/F35s take care of pounding ground targets and intercepting aircraft? (What role do artillery/long-range AA serve?)

You can use the f18/f35, but they are far more expensive to transport and maintain in a battle area. In Afghanistan Canada rented drones to provide over head security and intelligence gathering, however it would have been nice to put a maverick on some schmuck burying a roadside bomb.

Canada used Artillary to great effect in Afghanistan and Artillary is the great battlefield equalizer. but modern artillary is far more mobile and accurate and thats important.

In terms of the AA support. Eventually Canada is going to eventually be deployed again to a mission that involves a nation state that have either advanced missiles or aircraft on call, we need to update our systems to create a safe mobile bubble over our troops in the field.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You require a whole different infrastructure to take care of the reactors on a submarines, and a whole different class of sailors to run and maintain them. instead of diesel mechanics you need people with a masters level in nuclear engineering. You would also need to create a whole new training and safety system.



You can use the f18/f35, but they are far more expensive to transport and maintain in a battle area. In Afghanistan Canada rented drones to provide over head security and intelligence gathering, however it would have been nice to put a maverick on some schmuck burying a roadside bomb.

Canada used Artillary to great effect in Afghanistan and Artillary is the great battlefield equalizer. but modern artillary is far more mobile and accurate and thats important.

In terms of the AA support. Eventually Canada is going to eventually be deployed again to a mission that involves a nation state that have either advanced missiles or aircraft on call, we need to update our systems to create a safe mobile bubble over our troops in the field.

Seriously, the article talked about Canada needing to stop relying on friends to transport our military to places that it is needed. A lack of big helicopters and ships hinders us in a big way. And if we cannot transport our guys to the north ourselves no one else will. On thing the military could use are those huge hover/landing crafts that the US marines use. In the disaster here in Japan 18 thousand marines kept 100's of thousands alive because they could transport 100's of tonnes of supplies to them directly even though roads and airports were non-existent.

That of course means the navy would need a craft to carry these. This craft would be the one carrying the helicopters, artillery, etc....

Dreaming I know....but why not.

[HOZ]

Or go with a faster, sleeker design

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Seriously, the article talked about Canada needing to stop relying on friends to transport our military to places that it is needed. A lack of big helicopters and ships hinders us in a big way. And if we cannot transport our guys to the north ourselves no one else will. On thing the military could use are those huge hover/landing crafts that the US marines use. In the disaster here in Japan 18 thousand marines kept 100's of thousands alive because they could transport 100's of tonnes of supplies to them directly even though roads and airports were non-existent.

That of course means the navy would need a craft to carry these. This craft would be the one carrying the helicopters, artillery, etc....

Dreaming I know....but why not.

When Harper was running against Martin he really pushed hard for something very similar that would be able to carry helicopters and armored vehicles and troops, but would also have roll on roll off capability.

He also figured that ships like this could supply humanitarian supplies anywhere in the world.

Ships like this would also have to carry enough fuel and have enough legs to support a Canadian Task force of one destroyer and up to 5 frigates and their accompanying helicopters.

So unlike what your seeing about, which I think is a Tarawa class, Canada would need to have something bigger to be able to replenish fleets including fueling.

Or create a separate class of between 2 and 4 ships like the above, and 2 to 4 fleet oilers.

Now the interesting thought is that the american's are retiring the Tarawa class to replace them with the new America class, maybe the American's would be willing to sell us a couple instead of turning them into razor blades, because we don't have big enough ship yards to build that class of ships.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Or go with a faster, sleeker design

Spoiler!

U.S.S America

Speed of 20 + knots

carries 1700 marines

This ship was built with the F-35B in mind as it will carry 6 fighters, 12 Osphrey and 16 other helicopters

[Vulcan]

Yeah, we can't rely on the Americans to protect our north, they have their own interests which don't necessarily jive with ours. Population wise we are starting to approach the main countries of Europe but our ability to protect our land is no where near at their capability. I think we need some big ice breaking ships for the north just to protect what we have. Probably Denmark is more ready for the opening of the NW passage then Canada is.

Here's a map of the area and the disputed territory.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...putes-map.html

[Violator]

There is 35 billion in Navy contracts waiting to be dolled out right know which will take along time as well as the joint support ship project which also hasn't been signed.

As well as a proposed naval base in Nunavut that would help back up our arctic sovereignty.

[Byrns]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You require a whole different infrastructure to take care of the reactors on a submarines, and a whole different class of sailors to run and maintain them. instead of diesel mechanics you need people with a masters level in nuclear engineering. You would also need to create a whole new training and safety system.



You can use the f18/f35, but they are far more expensive to transport and maintain in a battle area. In Afghanistan Canada rented drones to provide over head security and intelligence gathering, however it would have been nice to put a maverick on some schmuck burying a roadside bomb.

Canada used Artillary to great effect in Afghanistan and Artillary is the great battlefield equalizer. but modern artillary is far more mobile and accurate and thats important.

In terms of the AA support. Eventually Canada is going to eventually be deployed again to a mission that involves a nation state that have either advanced missiles or aircraft on call, we need to update our systems to create a safe mobile bubble over our troops in the field.

It's not the King of Battle for nothing.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Hey Captain, can you put spoiler tags on your pic?

[SeeBass]

All of these great ideas on how to have a better military.

But not one suggestion on how we can help them when they come home. I couldn't tell you which plane,boat,truck is truly best but we do need to upgrade how we treat our service people when it is time for our country to help them.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You require a whole different infrastructure to take care of the reactors on a submarines, and a whole different class of sailors to run and maintain them. instead of diesel mechanics you need people with a masters level in nuclear engineering. You would also need to create a whole new training and safety system.

Does using nuclear reactors for military purposes (naval vessels) violate the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?

[CaptainCrunch]

Not that I'm aware of. the U.S. Uk China and Russia are all members and the 4 nations club of nuclear powered vessels

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

All of these great ideas on how to have a better military.

But not one suggestion on how we can help them when they come home. I couldn't tell you which plane,boat,truck is truly best but we do need to upgrade how we treat our service people when it is time for our country to help them.

Completely agree,

[Flash Walken]

Because of Canada's relatively little future expenses in military investment, Canada as a nation is in a terrific position to do an overhaul on most of the aspects of the military.

Directives should be 1) Improving the viability and presence of coastline defense. Force projection from a coastal naval stand point should be the number 1 project for Canada's new emerging military strength. You can't build enough boats.

2) heavy funding of smaller, more specialized fighting forces. Highly skilled/trained, terrain specific fighting forces are already the leading edge weapon on the battlefield. Time to do away with just about all aspects of the foregone 'theatre of operations' style land combat training/investment.

3) Heavy, medium and tactical insertion aircraft are needed for all branches of the military. Canada should take a lead role in the development and deployment of force projection aircraft that will allow the decisive deployment of the aforementioned primary terrain combat forces into and out of action.

The military of the future is predicated upon many small moving parts that can be quickly re-organized into a variety of combat and non combat orientations.