Canadian Military News

[Violator]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

What's the point of having soldiers if you can't abuse/misuse them......

It is a Canadian staple, dating back to the Ross Rifle.

ross rifle and a hughes shovel is all any infantrymen needed during ww1.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by violator

ross rifle and a hughes shovel is all any infantrymen needed deserved during ww1.

fyp

[Tron_fdc]

Out of curiosity, can we not just go out and purchase some used jets from one of our allies? Or is that a waste of money like the subs we bought?

It's a joke that we keep changing and bickering about what we are doing, all the while costing taxpayers boat loads of money and kicking the problem further and further doen the line.

Is no one capable of making a decision here?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Its not a interim solution at all. Its a kick this to the next government move.

I have to say, I find this kind of hilarious.

Trudeau campaigned on this and his solution was to devise a solution that wasnt a solution.

"I have decided to find a way to not make a decision."

It sounds like something Mayor Quimby would do.

[speede5]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...rces-1.3872347

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sena...ping-1.3870950

Senate earning their money?

Good

Unless the UN generates a clear set of rules of engagement, a proper TOE that allows the UN forces to protect themselves against an insurgency which is what will happen there. And properly funds the armed forces then I want no part of it.

The butcher's bill for peacekeeping in these nations is going to make Afghanistan look like nothing. Especially since the UN seems to be willing to sacrifice troops so they can wear t-shirts that say "look we're helpimg"

We are once again approaching serious rust out in the armed forces. Harper tried to slow it down, but he had to spend a ton of money just to update essential kit for Afghanistan, and to stop relying on other countries for their logistical train and transport at hideously expensive rates.

and no I wouldn't have interest in buying used equipment. Military equipment is sophisticated and its used hard, so why would we want to buy something that's probably at or beyond half life and will cost a fortune to maintain.

When we bought the Victoria Class submarines, the government at the time self back stabbed themselves at how much money they saved. And it would have probably been a decent purchase as the Victoria Class boat at the time was a really good concept for a budget navy. But our lack inspections and trusting the English when they said "Relax Chap, we've telling you these submarines are pristine" instead created a massively costly program where we have submarines that are lacking the capability that we require.

At the end of the day as well, we could buy used equipment but then how much do we spend to Canadianize them? Inspect them for wear and tear and failure points, as opposed to buying new with a plan for how to Canadianize them on the production line like the CF-35.

I mean the bottom line is that we can talk about the troubles plaguing the F-35 and there are some especially with the Marine variant, but that check list is shrinking and we are seeing operational squadrons starting to be deployed by other nations and the American's starting to sign off on the operation of the F-35. But we're not talking about problems with the Super hornet including problems with the oxygen system that can't be fixed.

I like what Flash said about the disgrace of how we equip our troops. If we're going to continue with a small army and airforce and navy, don't we owe it to those soldiers to have all the advantages and survivability possible. If we're going to have a relatively small military shouldn't it be modern? Shouldn't we be able to go onto the battlefield and not have to worry about our planes being badly outmatched or vulnerable. Our tanks not being able to function properly engine failures on our AFV? or showing up wearing forest cammo in a desert environment.

And this isn't just a liberal problem, though Trudeau didn't trust the military and tried to bring it to heel, and Chretien thought that people in the military were knuckle draggers. But Harper could have done a lot more, to give him credit he improved airlift and ground forces capabilities, but he was frozen on the helicopter replacement, didn't fight hard enough for the F-35 and watched us lose our command and coordination and self supply naval capability.

To me its nuts that we're so willing to put people in a position to die and then spend very little on improving their odds of surviving, and then and here's the rant, when they come home damaged and broken both physically and mentally we sit back and do nothing while parading our troops around as if its a sign that we support them.

the average person supports our soldiers and pilots and sailors, I've seen it every day at remembrance day, but our government no matter what the party sure doesn't.

Its stupid and its aggravating, we have no long term strategy, we have no procurement strategy and our new PM is using the military like a public service campaign with very little awareness of what its going to cost. We're not going to bring peace to these nations, we're going to unite both sides to fight us and we're going to die in numbers.

I want this nation to have absolutely nothing to do with UN peacekeeping unless its done right, not just rolling a bunch of guys in jeeps out with blue berets with bad equipment and a rules of engagement that's stupid and dangerous.

If Justin wants a cushy UN job and he wants to walk over our troops to get it, then I damn sure hope that he's the first one that's going to be willing to say, "We're not doing it, unless its done right"/

Sorry rant off.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by speede5

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...rces-1.3872347

Capt. Thomas McQueen

A total of 19 CF-18 Hornets have crashed since the RCAF acquired the fleet of aircraft in 1982. The Liberal government is currently looking at ways to replace and prolong the lives of the aging planes.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

What's the point of having soldiers if you can't abuse/misuse them......

It is a Canadian staple, dating back to the Ross Rifle.

Ouch. Bad timing for that comment.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sexu...rvey-1.3868377

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Ouch. Bad timing for that comment.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sexu...rvey-1.3868377

I posted that article earlier.

My comment has nothing to do with the disgusting culture of sexual assault in the military.

My comment was point straight at the misuse of troops: IE sending them on useless/dangerous Peacekeeping mission.

The abuse comment is aimed at the piss poor equipping of our troops. In my mind it is abusive (broad use of the term) to send people to a war zone with old #### equipment.

I stand by my comment.

[Flash Walken]

Soldiers are trained to kill.

It's beyond stupid to send them into a situation where the primary goal is not dispatching the enemy with the greatest efficiency they can muster.

If Canada wants to join peace keeping missions they should create a separate arm of Canada's armed forces called 'peace keepers' and train them to be peace keepers.

Leave the soldiers at home unless something needs to be blown up or killed.

[Baron von Kriterium]

With respect to the fighter replacement/purchase, I offer the following comments, not based on any facts, but based on the fun I have speculating on what happens within the PMO's office.

It appears that the Liberals have enlarged the corner in which their leader painted them into:

To justify the no F35s, they invented the "Capability Gap";

To fill the "Capability Gap", they sole sourced F18 SH (but only 18);

To justify the sole source, they kicked the "open and fair" competition five years down the road; and

To justify the delay they now state they need more new fighters!

But then the sticker shock will hit in about a year - followed by "Presto!" GENERAL ELECTION! and......................

Sorry CAF/RCAF no money in the kitty.

To the lay person, buying these capital items shouldn't be too onerous; however, bear in mind that we haven't seen a successful combat boot replacement in years. Several have been trialled and all have been disasters. The Army is at the point of going back to the Mk II Black Cadillacs, but they will, of course, be known as the Mk III Black Cadillacs.
Feck it; I just buy my own boots. So do many others.

Now that rant just reminds me that some recruits in their basic training don't even have all of their kit. Some are in coveralls and staff members have been known to loan them their extra boots. It is quite pathetic, actually.

All that to say that if we can't even give our soldiers the bare minimum, purchasing frigates and jet fighters is a large hurdle for the mandarins in Ottawa.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

To the lay person, buying these capital items shouldn't be too onerous; however, bear in mind that we haven't seen a successful combat boot replacement in years. Several have been trialled and all have been disasters. The Army is at the point of going back to the Mk II Black Cadillacs, but they will, of course, be known as the Mk III Black Cadillacs.
Feck it; I just buy my own boots. So do many others.

Now that rant just reminds me that some recruits in their basic training don't even have all of their kit. Some are in coveralls and staff members have been known to loan them their extra boots. It is quite pathetic, actually.

All that to say that if we can't even give our soldiers the bare minimum, purchasing frigates and jet fighters is a large hurdle for the mandarins in Ottawa.

Thanks for this point. I don't think the general population has any idea how poorly equipped the individual soldier is. I shake my head that the military can't figure out something as simple as footwear. This was an issue when I joined in '89. I remember when Gore-tex were finally issued. We were all excited at the idea of dry feet. Then these POS showed up:

Spoiler!

FFS, as I said earlier it is a Canadian Tradition.

[speede5]

Some of that is on the military too. I'm sure you've seen your share of waste as I have in all my time. They just gave MJ several million for the base and it is like a kid went on a spending spree. Replacing a perimeter fence with an identical fence, putting up fancy electronic billboards with a base logo on them, and then the messhall has a sinkhole open under it and no one knows what to do.

DND really needs to embrace a business attitude with a lot of it's lower level decisions and management. Most of the people making these decisions have never had a day's training in money management.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Soldiers are trained to kill.

It's beyond stupid to send them into a situation where the primary goal is not dispatching the enemy with the greatest efficiency they can muster.

If Canada wants to join peace keeping missions they should create a separate arm of Canada's armed forces called 'peace keepers' and train them to be peace keepers.

Leave the soldiers at home unless something needs to be blown up or killed.

I'm curious and I'm absolutely not trying to be a smart a$$, but I'd love to see what your definition of a Peace Keeper is. Because to me the concept has shifted, and will shift again with these missions in Africa where its basically crazed militia groups.

If you want to read an excellent read about Canada and its peacekeeping role going forward. you might want to pick up Jack Granasteins "Who killed the Canadian Military" "Who's war is it anyways"

Who's war is it anyways looks at Canada's military policy and foreign affairs. Who killed the Canadian Military looks at the history of Canadian decisions when it comes to their military.

In who's war is it anyways it does try to define Peacekeeping missions moving forward and it does talk about the creation of a specific unit that are just peace keepers.

[Flash Walken]

Thanks for the recommendations, I will pick those up shortly.

Honestly, i'm not qualified enough to determine what would be good criteria for a 'Peace Keeper'.

Spitballing here but I would imagine there would be a primary focus on:

- First aid and medic training
- Small arms training
- training for unit specific weapons platforms and vehicles
- language training / certification
- basic clinical psychology

I'm not sure how you'd populate this unit or attract members to it, but I see them as being a unit unto themselves that perhaps rolls out with regular infantry as support if need be but is part of a larger focus on disaster response, front line aid and post conflict peace keeping.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Thanks for the recommendations, I will pick those up shortly.

Honestly, i'm not qualified enough to determine what would be good criteria for a 'Peace Keeper'.

Spitballing here but I would imagine there would be a primary focus on:

- First aid and medic training
- Small arms training
- training for unit specific weapons platforms and vehicles
- language training / certification
- basic clinical psychology

I'm not sure how you'd populate this unit or attract members to it, but I see them as being a unit unto themselves that perhaps rolls out with regular infantry as support if need be but is part of a larger focus on disaster response, front line aid and post conflict peace keeping.

That's why we have DART and specic medical services and engineering groups. However I don't see any peace keeping group that can be based around the above. The biggest failure of the UN and its peacekeeping mandate is an abject failure to enforce the peace. We're also dealing with fairly sophisticated enemies here that are now fairly well trained and equipt.

You can take the above elements from various formations in the military, police, medical, emergency support and infrastructure, I don't think you need to create a seperate unit for that.

On top of that, I firmly believe that the failure of the UN in peacekeeping is because the troops they sent are lightly armed and have no teeth whatsoever. On top of that the rules of engagement are usually poorly defined and its gotten people killed both civilian and military.

If I was going to create a specific un force, it would literally be a self sustaining battle group with air, logistics, armor and infantry support and then you can fold in services as required.

Anyways, I think you'll enjoy those books if you pick them up. Let me know what you think.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

On top of that, I firmly believe that the failure of the UN in peacekeeping is because the troops they sent are lightly armed and have no teeth whatsoever. On top of that the rules of engagement are usually poorly defined and its gotten people killed both civilian and military.

If I was going to create a specific un force, it would literally be a self sustaining battle group with air, logistics, armor and infantry support and then you can fold in services as required.

Anyways, I think you'll enjoy those books if you pick them up. Let me know what you think.

Experience confirms you better have a big ####ing stick of you want someone to pay attention.

I honestly believe that we might have been dead but for the TOW and heavy weapons we had.

[undercoverbrother]

This won't end well.

I feel for the soldier that caps a child soldier.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...-soldiers.html

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm just curious about what Canada's top brass and our government think that's going to happen when they deploy on a peace keeping mission into these nations.

Do they think we're going to make a lick of difference?

Do they think that all sides in these conflicts aren't going to turn on the UN peacekeepers?

If they go in with the typical fumbling UN approach and think that white jeeps and blue berets and some rifles are going to settle things down they're fooling themselves.

I'm no expert here, I'm clearly not in the government or a senior member of the Forces.

But if we decide that Mali is going to be where we make our mark, we're fighting brutal Jihadists that are linked into Al-Queda, these aren't some poor schlubs who picked up rifles and just started fighting, we're facing well supported, fairly well armed and trained crazies. And if you don't think that a Western Nation going in there isn't going to attract even worse elements your fooling yourself.

This is going to make the butchers bill in Afghanistan look like nothing, I hope Justin and his government are prepared for a busy highway of heroes.

Because Mali isn't going to be a peace keeping mission, its going to evolve into a anti-terrorism mission, and the UN is ill equip to handle that and I have very little faith that the UN has the leadership ability to make the tough calls that are surely going to cause civilian casualties.

Look, I'd put our average troops against anyone in the world in terms of training and professionalism, its too bad that our government is so poor at recognizing this and supporting it.

But going into any of these nations is going to be a mistake unless you're willing to actually fight a war against a invested insurgency.

Its great that the government is talking about training them to deal with Child Soldiers, who tend to be far more vicious then other soldiers due to their complete indoctrination. But we'd better be training them for all of the other eventualities that occur in asymmetrical warfare.

Personally as a Canadian and a former member of the Armed Forces, I want nothing to do with Mali and the other African UN based "Peace keeping" missions.

The UN is terrible at handling them and the cost is going to be way to high.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm just curious about what Canada's top brass and our government think that's going to happen when they deploy on a peace keeping mission into these nations.

Do they think we're going to make a lick of difference?

Do they think that all sides in these conflicts aren't going to turn on the UN peacekeepers?

If they go in with the typical fumbling UN approach and think that white jeeps and blue berets and some rifles are going to settle things down they're fooling themselves.

I'm no expert here, I'm clearly not in the government or a senior member of the Forces.

But if we decide that Mali is going to be where we make our mark, we're fighting brutal Jihadists that are linked into Al-Queda, these aren't some poor schlubs who picked up rifles and just started fighting, we're facing well supported, fairly well armed and trained crazies. And if you don't think that a Western Nation going in there isn't going to attract even worse elements your fooling yourself.

This is going to make the butchers bill in Afghanistan look like nothing, I hope Justin and his government are prepared for a busy highway of heroes.

Because Mali isn't going to be a peace keeping mission, its going to evolve into a anti-terrorism mission, and the UN is ill equip to handle that and I have very little faith that the UN has the leadership ability to make the tough calls that are surely going to cause civilian casualties.

Look, I'd put our average troops against anyone in the world in terms of training and professionalism, its too bad that our government is so poor at recognizing this and supporting it.

But going into any of these nations is going to be a mistake unless you're willing to actually fight a war against a invested insurgency.

Its great that the government is talking about training them to deal with Child Soldiers, who tend to be far more vicious then other soldiers due to their complete indoctrination. But we'd better be training them for all of the other eventualities that occur in asymmetrical warfare.

Personally as a Canadian and a former member of the Armed Forces, I want nothing to do with Mali and the other African UN based "Peace keeping" missions.

The UN is terrible at handling them and the cost is going to be way to high.

Not at all. Its a political stunt based on the Canadian nostalgia of Lester Pearson.