Canadian Military News

[Lubicon]

Sadly this is what I have come to expect from our government, and it seems to matter little what party is holding office.

[CaptainCrunch]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/02...se_a_23373906/

Operation bomb the crap out of florida with a life raft was a complete success.

[undercoverbrother]

Sometimes in I feel like I am drowning, work, life marriage all take their toll.

Sometimes I just want a sense of familiarity and consistency.


Thankfully whichever party is in power provide that through the miss-use, abuse and disdain for the military.

[Bigtime]

There's a Huffpost article out there today about potentially replacing the Polaris transport/tanker aircraft for around 2026. Part of the decision will be what fighter Canada chooses so they can pick an appropriate air to air refueler for it. I'm guessing the 767 and A330 options would be the two on the table for that.

However as for a government VIP transport what are the odds they split that fleet out and maybe wave the flag with the C Series? Two frames at most I'd think.

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

There's a Huffpost article out there today about potentially replacing the Polaris transport/tanker aircraft for around 2026. Part of the decision will be what fighter Canada chooses so they can pick an appropriate air to air refueler for it. I'm guessing the 767 and A330 options would be the two on the table for that.

However as for a government VIP transport what are the odds they split that fleet out and maybe wave the flag with the C Series? Two frames at most I'd think.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/can-...ment-1.4558838

From the article: "Our government is committed to providing the Royal Canadian Air Force with the critical equipment it needs to be fully operational, now and in the future."

hahahahahahahaha!

[Baron von Kriterium]

Logically, it would make sense to buy Airbus 330/KC-30. However, logic doesn't come into play too much with Canadian military procurement. They are more apt to direct that the fighter bidders re-design the fighters so as to be able to be refuelled with the current tankers.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

Logically, it would make sense to buy Airbus 330/KC-30. However, logic doesn't come into play too much with Canadian military procurement. They are more apt to direct that the fighter bidders re-design the fighters so as to be able to be refuelled with the current tankers.

I'm a little fuzzy on that, but wasn't that part of the problem with the CF-18's, they wanted a Canadian designed fuel boom?

One of the things that I think is going to have to change is this whole Canadianize every weapons system.

At some point it really messes up procurement and time lines and costs.

I mean fine, harden them for cold weather. but if we're going to inter-operate in NATO and Norad, then we should be buying off of the shelf equipment.

[CaptainCrunch]

Government bombs out on their commitment to UN Peace keeping frustrating the UN.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...mbia-1.4563147

t is startling that we had the personnel trained and we didn't deploy them," said Walter Dorn, a professor at the Canadian Forces Staff College. He said Canada's failure to send soldiers to the one of the most auspicious missions on the UN's plate throws into doubt the Liberals' election pledge to return to peacekeeping in a meaningful way.


Since the 2015 election of the Liberal government and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's declaration that "Canada is back" on the world stage, the UN has offered Canada a number of marquee posts and opportunities.




According to documents uncovered last summer by CBC News, Canada was: offered command of the mission in Mali; asked to deploy troops to replace the Dutch contingent in the same country; bombarded with multiple requests for helicopter support and; asked to establish a police training mission in the volatile Central African Republic.


All of the requests were turned down, much to the frustration of UN officials and diplomats with the European Union who were courting Canada on separate, but complementary peace deployments and training in the region.
"The cabinet is just not able to make up its mind about where it wants to deploy," said Dorn. "It seems there is eagerness at some levels of the Canadian government, but not others."


ast fall, Trudeau laid out the Liberal government's roadmap for rejoining peacekeeping, which includes phased deployments of transport planes, helicopters, military trainers and a 200-strong rapid reaction force over a five-year period.


Where they'll go, and when, is still the subject of discussions.
The federal government also made an important social commitment to deploy more women peacekeepers and to end the exploitation of child soldiers.
Dorn said Canada's contribution to UN missions is at an all-time low.
At the end of December, Canada had only 43 peacekeepers deployed on various missions.

But . . . but Canada's back?

Or not

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Government bombs out on their commitment to UN Peace keeping frustrating the UN.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...mbia-1.4563147



But . . . but Canada's back?

Or not

Good Peacekeeping doesn't ####ing work.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Good Peacekeeping doesn't ####ing work.

I agree, I believe that peace keeping is a dead concept, unless you have a mandate for peace enforcement.

However this goes back to the making a commitment without follow through, and wasting money on training peace keepers that you're not going to lose.

If we're not going to do it, or live up to the commitments that we talked about while screaming "Canada's back" then come out and state that.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I agree, I believe that peace keeping is a dead concept, unless you have a mandate for peace enforcement.

However this goes back to the making a commitment without follow through, and wasting money on training peace keepers that you're not going to lose.

If we're not going to do it, or live up to the commitments that we talked about while screaming "Canada's back" then come out and state that.

Yeah I know the thoughts behind your post.

I could have actually said, Peacekeeping has never worked.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Yeah I know the thoughts behind your post.

I could have actually said, Peacekeeping has never worked.

I think the funniest thing that I saw was that Canada was promising these peace keepers to the UN for these dangerous missions into Africa. But when push came to shove the government came out and said, what we'll do is train other companies peace keepers.

However Canada real experience in peace keeping has long since departed from the Forces. Even the guys that served and fought in Afghanistan are becoming few and far between.

So frankly I'm sure that if other countries want to train peacekeepers they can open the same textbook that we would open.

We really don't have a solid level of peace keeping experience anymore to call ourselves experts or experienced.

[CaptainCrunch]

Mclean's looks at Canada''s military spending in the budget and follows up on last years, promises by the government.

http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/whats...ence-spending/

You really have to dig into Equality+Growth, the Liberal government’s 2018 budget document, to find any mention of defence spending at all. Only after more than 300 pages, in the Supplementary Information section, can you find a table that shows National Defence is the largest spender amongst government departments. At $25.5 billion, forecasted direct-program expenditures by National Defence will clock in at more than the next two departments—Indigenous Services Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency, which were both forecasted to spend $11.0 billion—combined.


The same table shows that the total for all direct programs spending from the government in 2018 will be $338.5 billion, so the defence part only comprises 7.53 per cent of that total. That seems minuscule until it’s compared with the $26.3 billion the government will pay covering the interest on the federal debt. Or—seen another way—given that the budget shortfall for 2018-19 is projected to be $18.1 billion, knowing what a significant portion of spending defence represents helps explain why it’s always a target for reduction.

So the likely course of action for the military leadership will be to hold their tongues and keep their heads down. But of course, there are problems—lots of them.


What was supposed to be a low-risk, two-year deployment to Afghanistan turned into the longest conflict in Canadian history. The army is broken and worn out. Beyond that, almost all major equipment systems are decades-old and the supporting infrastructure is in a deplorable state of disrepair. There are very great needs for increased defence spending just to rectify the material side of the house.

The human costs of Afghanistan have also been high. Suicide, depression and domestic violence are commonplace in the forces. Shortages of trained and effective members, most recently identified in the 2016 report of the Auditor General, have worsened. Recruitment targets are not being met and voluntary releases have continued to climb. Some military trades are now 20 per cent short of target manning levels. When five per cent short is considered a critical manpower shortage, 20 per cent is a catastrophe.


And most of the spending in this year’s budget is devoted to cybersecurity and cyberdefence; virtually no new spending has been set out for the fundamentals of Canada’s armed forces, including capital procurement.

hen it comes to defence, absent a major threat, new capital program spending is always viewed as discretionary, meaning that Cabinet retains approval of all major programs and could reduce or eliminate them, even if recommended by Treasury Board. That was supposed to change with the Liberal defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, released last year. The claim, made repeatedly by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, is that full lifecycle costs for all material needs were built into the new policy. However, the lack of capacity from within the department to administer major programs due to the lack of experienced military and public works program managers has already translated into reduced spending, despite the money carved out for them.

“DND is on track to deliver barely better than half of the intended spending on new equipment and infrastructure,” wrote Dave Perry, vice president and senior analyst with Canadian Global Affairs, in a report in January. While some believe deferred spending will eventually be used as planned, I remain skeptical.

In the short term, the lack of new spending in the new budget means DND will have to make economical choices for interim replacements for worn-out ships, aircraft and vehicles. The air force’s interest in acquiring used fighters from Australia may fit this purpose. But the navy’s leasing of a converted container ship from Federal Fleet Systems for $700 million over five years for operational sustainment is a less convincing effort at economy; it cannot be used for combat missions, so it will also have limited effectiveness.

In otherwords, Canada's policy paper from last year, which bragged about the modernization of the forces s in pretty much danger of being ignored.

I've said that there is a danger of a complete disintegration of the Canadian Forces in the next decade.

1) We're on the verge now of a complete rust out of all key equipment. F-18's, naval ships, submarines, command and control assets are not only dangerously obsolete, but are on the edge of being un usable.

2) Recruiting is down, voluntary separation is up. Why serve in a Military that doesn't take you seriously? The answer is you don't. The Canadian Forces is losing its most experienced members, and the officer core is having its guts ripped out as people leave.

3) Logistics and procurement is a complete shambles, the Canadian Forces is losing its mobility and ability to support itself in the field.

While Cyber-security is nice, I still wonder why is not something that comes out of our intelligence and security budget. The concern is that the bedrock of the Canadian Forces which is based around the formula of capability + experience + survivability is rotten. Our capability is close to gone. Our experience bleeding out, and when you combine those two factors survivibility is decreased.

[CaptainCrunch]

More on Canada talking a big game but delivering nothing when it comes to the UN and the global community

http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/on-pe...bal-community/

[QUOTEBut rather than delivering a reinvigorated peacekeeping effort, two years of handwringing by the Trudeau administration has seen Canada revert to a pre-Pearson era level of deployment. Experts agree that decision-making has become paralyzed and that the Liberal government seems reluctant to follow through on its promises. “Canada has let the UN down,” said Dr. Walter Dorn of the Canadian Forces College. “If you actually look at the pledges we would have more than 750 uniformed personnel and we’re down at an all-time low. It’s a disappointment and at this point, you could say it’s a broken promise.”
Dorn puts the blame at desks of the most senior figures in the current administration: “I think it’s at the cabinet level: the Prime Minister, the Defence Minister and the Foreign Minister just haven’t got their act together.”][/QUOTE]

Even more disappointing is that the original troop pledge was sold as a sign of Canada’s commitment to the international community. “This government came to power with the promise of doing real peacekeeping and then has repeatedly told the UN and lots of countries that might want to vote for Canada for the next security council seat,” said Stephen M. Saideman, the Paterson Chair in International Affairs at Carleton University.

[CaptainCrunch]

On a side not, its passed time that Harjit Saijan gets shuffled from the post of Minister of National Defense, he's awful at his job, and maybe they can shuffle him into a role that he would be good at, like Minister of Dog Catching.

Also its time to shuffle Jonathan Vance into retirement, I had high hopes for him as a Chief of Defense Staff, but he's been completely underwhelming and far more political then any other CDS.

[GoinAllTheWay]

It's time for elections IMO. But that being said, don't think there is much better waiting in the wings.

[CaptainCrunch]

My choice for a Liberal Defense Minister was Marc Garneau

He spent 15 years in the navy rising to a command rank, he was a fricken astronaut, and seems to be fairly honest, He's wasted in Transportation.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

My choice for a Liberal Defense Minister was Marc Garneau

He spent 15 years in the navy rising to a command rank, he was a fricken astronaut, and seems to be fairly honest, He's wasted in Transportation.

Hey Cap is there any precedent for this kind of rust out in a military? Maybe the fall of the USSR? This looks like the government is simply abandoning the forces and getting out of the business of national defence. It’s shocking.

[CaptainCrunch]

Its a question that I would have to look at.

Cross Spectrum Army, navy and airforce? Even at its worst, the Soviet to Russian military still had core capability.

They rusted out the older units, and spent the money supporting more modern units. But the Russian's still had capability. for example with their navy, they allowed most of their sub capability to rust out, or sit at the pier, but maintained their newer platforms. Same with their navy, they allowed a rust out of older platforms but kept their priority fleet vehicles working.

With the russians as far as personal, they washed out a lot of troops, but that wasn't a big deal because it was a conscript army with I think 3 years terms in the army, 4 year in the navy, and the russian Military didn't really have a professional NCO Corp, their Sergeants, weren't anything more then conscripts with better training.

If Canada loses that professional core of experiences NCO's, which is starting to happen now, that guts the military.


I think Canada's in worse shape because its front line equipment that's being allowed to tumble into rust out and becoming obsolete.

Our navy has no real way to coordinate as a Canadian Fleet unit, we will still have trouble with re-supply at sea, and our Frigates while nice, are starting to have troubles.

The Airforce is in bad shape and is losing capability rapidly.

The Army is the worst of all.

I don't know, you're answer is tough, maybe start looking at African nations.

[CaptainCrunch]

Right now a comparible situation would be Germany, but their issue is a lack of funds, combined with them maybe over stretching in terms of missions. Basically they wore their military out.

https://www.ft.com/content/23c524f6-...6-4a6390addb44

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/muni...-report-finds/

However the argument around Germany is that if needed they could still put troops in the field and support them, I would question Canada's ability to do that at this point.

Germany also is supporting about 15,000 members world wide.