Canada's new defense thinking!

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by 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.

That always brings up the question of what kind of boats. Canada has the makings of a nice middle power nation with 13 frigates, 4 submarines and multiple coastal defense ships. The problem is that they're facing an incredible navy from the South that can project power in thousand mile bubbles, and the Soviet Navy which has begun a rebuild is very powerful in its own right. It can't project power in the same way as the American's, but it can outgun and outrange anything that Canada can deploy. don't forget that the Russians also have formidable Naval Aviation assets made up of heavy fast bombers that carry extremely long range missiles.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

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.

I don't believe in this unless you're willing to integrate your specialized military with another nation to cover your shortfalls. We've also seen how how the rapidly shifting face of war destroys a countries ability to specialize. I think we've gotten too enamoured with the last two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which weren't as much wars as an excercise in fighting a non regular army. But the next war could be another Bosnia where you're fighting a theatre of operations where the enemy has access to heavy armour, tactical helicopters etc.

We saw that the American's still required theatre of operation style tactics at the start of the Iraq war, it was when they got into the insurgency that you saw what happened when you have a specialized military.



[QUOTE=Flash Walken;32863053) 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.[/quote]

I'm confused by this, when you talk about force projection aircraft, are you talking about transports? Escorts? Ground Attack Fighters? Are youp talking about bringing in Spectre gunships?

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

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.

I agree to an extent, thats why you need to have access to most of the components so that you can build specialized battlegroups. Which to me means that you need to have access to light and heavy armour, artillary, tactical aircraft etc.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

That always brings up the question of what kind of boats. Canada has the makings of a nice middle power nation with 13 frigates, 4 submarines and multiple coastal defense ships. The problem is that they're facing an incredible navy from the South that can project power in thousand mile bubbles, and the Soviet Navy which has begun a rebuild is very powerful in its own right. It can't project power in the same way as the American's, but it can outgun and outrange anything that Canada can deploy. don't forget that the Russians also have formidable Naval Aviation assets made up of heavy fast bombers that carry extremely long range missiles.

I haven't done any kind of study on what the best naval vessels for coastal and sea zone patrol/defense are, but I'm imagining it's in some form that comprises a mix of specialized vessels and airships. Range isn't particularly relevant as it's not an expeditionary force traversing massive distances for months away from port.

I don't believe in this unless you're willing to integrate your specialized military with another nation to cover your shortfalls. We've also seen how how the rapidly shifting face of war destroys a countries ability to specialize. I think we've gotten too enamoured with the last two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which weren't as much wars as an excercise in fighting a non regular army. But the next war could be another Bosnia where you're fighting a theatre of operations where the enemy has access to heavy armour, tactical helicopters etc.

Our armed forces are already oriented to fighting piggy back from other nations (ahem, our big buddy to the south). Now, I think that's mostly due to lack of funding, but that orientation is already in place.

Along with the re-alignment of canada's physical military will have to be a policy change as well determining the types of actions we're prepared to get involved in. So called 'Police Actions' are not the role of resource rich, technically advanced country of a small population.

We saw that the American's still required theatre of operation style tactics at the start of the Iraq war, it was when they got into the insurgency that you saw what happened when you have a specialized military.

You're absolutely right. My point is that there is no way Canada should find itself involved in the kinds of conflicts where one side is lined up against the other and a captain yells 'Fire!'. If they are, it's likely because of a political misstep.

I'm confused by this, when you talk about force projection aircraft, are you talking about transports? Escorts? Ground Attack Fighters? Are youp talking about bringing in Spectre gunships?

I wasn't very clear. Projection of force from coastal areas out into Canada's sea zones. Something like a mix of man and unmanned vehicles, a smattering of fleet defense aircraft and some CH-53s for everyone in the service.

Question time: How effective are Spectre gunships on Naval Vessels?

[MarchHare]

Question time: How effective are Spectre gunships on Naval Vessels?

They'd be sitting ducks.

Gunships fly at relatively low airspeeds and altitudes and manoeuvre in slow, predictable circles around their target area. That's fantastic when you're fighting an enemy without sophisticated air defense systems, but against a modern navy, they'd be shot down within seconds.

There's a reason naval warfare has evolved to firing anti-shipping missiles (either air or surface launched) from beyond visual range.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I haven't done any kind of study on what the best naval vessels for coastal and sea zone patrol/defense are, but I'm imagining it's in some form that comprises a mix of specialized vessels and airships. Range isn't particularly relevant as it's not an expeditionary force traversing massive distances for months away from port.

This is the 10,000 pound gorilla in the room. As far as the arctic goes, we're caught between two truly great naval powers, now chances are that we're not going to have to face the U.S. Navy, but we need to have a Navy that can fight hold actions. But arctic capabilities are tough, our frigs, destroyers and coastal patrol ships are not arctic capable.

Our subs are literally not arctic capable. So one of the things movie forward is the construction of a Northern Command with armed ice breakers or AIS based subs.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Our armed forces are already oriented to fighting piggy back from other nations (ahem, our big buddy to the south). Now, I think that's mostly due to lack of funding, but that orientation is already in place.

True, but we also have to look at our own national defense and not just how we're going to deploy when called. Again, while the expectation is that Canada will never be invaded, I think that if the battle for the North ever happens, the first thing that a Russian Force would do would be to land airborne and sea borne troops up North, and then re-enforce them. We need to be able to plan for that too.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Along with the re-alignment of canada's physical military will have to be a policy change as well determining the types of actions we're prepared to get involved in. So called 'Police Actions' are not the role of resource rich, technically advanced country of a small population.

I think that the day and age of peace keeping is dead, I also think that the day and age of the UN running missions is dead, more then likely they will continue to depend on NATO to provide Peace Enforcement. Future Peace Keeping means the forcefull threat of destruction for the offending side. Rwanda truly showed us that peace keeping is now a failure. People wonder why we're not sending troops into Dafur for example, and the reason is that without a mandate of being able to use overwhelming combat force and heavy arms you'll plant a UN peacekeeping force in a weak.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You're absolutely right. My point is that there is no way Canada should find itself involved in the kinds of conflicts where one side is lined up against the other and a captain yells 'Fire!'. If they are, it's likely because of a political misstep.

But we are seeing more and more nations that are splitting among political and religious lines, in Africa especially. We're also going to see some fragmentation continue in Eastern Europs along religious lines. So there is a need to be ready to peace enforce against nations that have modern arms.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I wasn't very clear. Projection of force from coastal areas out into Canada's sea zones. Something like a mix of man and unmanned vehicles, a smattering of fleet defense aircraft and some CH-53s for everyone in the service.

One thing that probably needs to be replaced are the Aurora coastal patrol and anti submarine planes. I would like to see the army get better heavy lift and troop lift helicopter capability. One thing that we're missing is a dedicated attack helicopter option.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Question time: How effective are Spectre gunships on Naval Vessels?

In attacking them? Not very, they're fairly slow, and their strength is circling and pounding. Most naval ships have radar that go out dozen's to hundred miles, and sam missiles with longer rangers then that.

Basically they would see a Spectre a long time before they got to attack range.

The best tactic against naval vessels is sea skimming missiles lanched from naval vessels and air craft or snap shots from Submarines using torpedos or in the Russian's cased dedicated guided missile based Carrier killing submarines.

[Flash Walken]

Sorry, my spectre line should have been green text

[CaptainCrunch]

heh, we're a literal board my friend

[Bindair Dundat]

Originally Posted by 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.

Agreed...

As well, Granatstein/Desmond Morton's work on 20th century history is meticulous to a fault, in both approach and in sources.

Highly recommended by this "warhead"...and fully authoritative when it comes to 1st Canadian Army, and the northwest campaign of 1944-45.

Finally,a PM with the balls,to give our boys the tools they need

About time.

Cheers, Ron

[worth]

I just stumbled upon this page on the National Post:

http://afghanistan.nationalpost.com/

It outlines the past 10 years in Afghanistan. Reading some of the articles from 2001 are interesting:

Even if we do deploy some troops to Afghanistan, they will likely have to go without their infantry support vehicles — as the Forces lack the airplanes and ships necessary to transport them. We would also have to rely on other nations’ militaries to provide our troops with food, water and munitions. We could send planes, but might have to beg other air forces for spare parts, as we did in Kosovo in 1999. To add insult to neglect, Mr. Chretien, in an interview aired Christmas Day on Global TV, pronounced our military “well equipped” and dismissed those who press him to end his fiscal abuse of the Forces as working hand in hand with defence contractors.

http://afghanistan.nationalpost.com/...ary-impotence/

Emphasis added.

Harper has put funding back into the forces and they are something Canadians can be proud of. Reading that certainly showed how much we depended on the US 10 years ago. Bring the Canadian Forces back to respectability Harper deserves credit for. The soverignty of this nation is up to no one but ourselves. We should be able to defend ourselves while being ready to respond if called upon.

Also, some great sketches here:



http://afghanistan.nationalpost.com/illustrations-2/

[CaptainCrunch]

Chretien was an idiot when it came to defense policy. The guy wanted his Peace Prize so he sent troops to every UN mission that he could get his hands on, even though he was pretty much the guy that finished off the Canadian Forces.

He brags that he said no to Iraq, but honestly he did send senior officers down to a conference on Iraq in the States to explore what Canada's role was, and to the chagrin of the Canadian Officers they were told quite brutally that they would be given basically a minor logistical role because our equipment couldn't keep up to the American's and British, and our obsolete communications systems would effect interoperability.

So Chretien found his own war in Afghanistan and to our embarrassment had to rent transportation, send our troops into a desert environment in wood land camo, he sent over the Iltis jeeps that his family members at Bombardier made a fortune on in a really smelly profit in the pocket deal even though he was warned they were inadequate for anything but maybe postal delivery in Northern Alberta.

Trudeau may have hated soldiers, actually no may about it, he was an elitist snob who thought that soldiers were useless sub intelligent servants, but I believe that Chretien believed that the military opposed him and were disloyal.

His policies went beyond neglect, to punishment, and he was willing to send men and woman into extreme danger to try to lay down his legacy.

Sorry, a bit of venting over two politicians that I have zero respect for.

[Bindair Dundat]

You should hear my Dad (CWO Ret.) talk about P.E.T.

...makes you sound pretty civil actually...

Cheers, Ron

[tjinaz]

Look at Sweden.

They have been doing this for years with the Russians and Germans fairly close by. They make their own gear and are really good at protecting their coasts and remote frontiers. They come up with some of the best ideas and equipment to suit their unique position.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

Look at Sweden.

They have been doing this for years with the Russians and Germans fairly close by. They make their own gear and are really good at protecting their coasts and remote frontiers. They come up with some of the best ideas and equipment to suit their unique position.

Sweden has a completely different model where everyone serves and everyone thats able is part of their reserve.

But for a small country they can swing above thier weight mainly because they insist on their own defense.

I'm a big fan of their weapons concepts

I really like their sub designs and their use of Air Independant propulsion gets around a lot of the problems with diesel electic submarines

The smartest move is that Sweden supports their arms industry through exports, their SAAB fighters are really picking up momentum in terms of international exports.

They did go out of country on their main battle tanks though moving to the Leopard 2's.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The smartest move is that Sweden supports their arms industry through exports, their SAAB fighters are really picking up momentum in terms of international exports.

This is quite interesting - I didn't realize they had any export market for their fighters. Thanks!

[CaptainCrunch]

Yup, South Africa, the Czechs and Hungary have all bought Saabs, and several other countries are taking serious looks

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The smartest move is that Sweden supports their arms industry through exports, their SAAB fighters are really picking up momentum in terms of international exports.

Thanks a lot, Deifenbaker.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SebC

Thanks a lot, Deifenbaker.

There were some problems with the Avro Arrow (I believe thats what your getting at isn't it?) that have probably been covered over by a bit of overly romantic memories of the problem.

1) About 3/4's of the way through the program they realized that the original engine plants would not allow the Arrow to meet its specifications, so they decided to build a made in Canada Solution

2) Near the end of the project they came to the realization that the Canadian designed fire and control weapons system was too expensive and they tried to find a American solution which caused even more problems

3) The interest that was stated by the international community was over exaggerated there was little interest outside of the Canadian border in purchasing the Arrow in quantities large enough to support the manufacture of it.

4) by 1958 the cost had risen to 12.5 million dollars per plan. To put that into perspective, 12.5 million in 1958 dollars would be about 97 million dollars in 2011 dollars.

5) The Avro was a great high speed high altitude bomber interceptor, but the bomber age was coming to an end as a main theatre nuclear delivery system. It would have been obsolete by the late 60's and the air frame wasn't built for turning battle. Combine that with the major modifications that would have had to happen to make it a multirole fighter bomber and it becomes problematic

To be honest, Dief was a bit of a moron, but in the case of the Arrow, I believe that the right decision was made, but it was carried out in a wrong manner.

The other problem is that movie that came out a few years ago, that showed American Air Force generals screaming for the U.S. government to buy the jet while the Avro workers heroically fought against the government to save the plane.

The American's weren't going to buy the Arrow to spite their own companies, and they knew if the Arrow died all of that expertise would come south anyways.

The Arrow was a great design for a precise window in time, its engineers were passionate and smart and they solved a lot of problems that moved the jet fighter into the modern age. But the Arrow was unrealistic.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

There were some problems with the Avro Arrow (I believe thats what your getting at isn't it?) that have probably been covered over by a bit of overly romantic memories of the problem.

Sure, but if we (I'm using that very loosely) hadn't pulled the plug on the program completely, it would have been a good technical basis for further developments.

[Bindair Dundat]

Ahh...was wondering when this old saw would rear it's head...

Here's a link to a rather detailled article about the evolution of the technology employed in/designed for, the CF-105 project. LINK

While I don't necessarily agree with all of the authors conclusions, it is a very enlightening (though somewhat torturous) read. The author examines all the major sub-systems of the aircraft, as well as the numerous advances in airframe design...

Cheers, Ron

[CaptainCrunch]

Its a good article however they did gloss over the cost per plane stating that it would be 3.5 million per copy, as oppossed to the 12.5 million per copy figure that I've seen in multiple studies.

BTW they talk about the American's waiting for the F108 program which was eventually cancelled

It seems that they were running along the same track as the Arrow