Canada Defence Force

[Novascotiaboy]

While I agree an MLU of the Cormorant is needed and the return to the air of the stored Kestrels I believe we should be seeking military fit for service helicopters as replacements for the Griffin fleet sooner rather than later.

The Griffon fleet should be sold off to foreign militaries of smaller nations. Acquire a mixed fleet of aircraft better suited to ARH and a medium lift than the civil 412.

Let's hope that the navy receives a second Resolve tanker as noted in the Senate report. As to the other items all of it can be funded if the government would stop meddling on a local level. Cut bases and amalgamate our limited resources in centralized super bases instead of having so much physical infrastructure to look after. Many of the bases that were built during WW2 or the Cold War are in poor locations that only serve to support a local civilian population. Nova Scotia hosts three bases in Greenwood SAR and LRMP/ ISR, Halifax for navy and Shearwater for naval air. Shearwater is the only base in all of Canada with rail, sea and air capability. If anything this base should be expanded as our expiditionary launch point. But because it's in NS and there is no political buy from investing in improvements nothing will happen.

We need to rationalize the bases and free up cash. Buy the right gear in the right numbers. Give our men and women to tools to do their job safely. Protect those that protect us. Stop buying junk.

 

[John Fedup]

I agree base consolidation would be an important way to increase savings and improve efficiency. However, the political blowback, both federally and provincially, is a bridge too far IMHO. Base closings are also a painful process for the US as well. As for improvements to the helicopter fleet, yes ARHs and better medium lift helicopters are needed. At this point, I am not sure about medium lift. If the Cyclones are finally sorted, then adding some more without all the specialized kit in the naval version makes sense. Maybe 2-3 of the Kestrels could be be made flight worthy and keep the rest for parts. I sure hope the RCN get Cyclones that meet the agreed to specs. AFAIK, they still have serious deficiencies. Are they still grounded?

 

[J_Can]

I agree base consolidation would be an important way to increase savings and improve efficiency. However, the political blowback, both federally and provincially, is a bridge too far IMHO. Base closings are also a painful process for the US as well. As for improvements to the helicopter fleet, yes ARHs and better medium lift helicopters are needed. At this point, I am not sure about medium lift. If the Cyclones are finally sorted, then adding some more without all the specialized kit in the naval version makes sense. Maybe 2-3 of the Kestrels could be be made flight worthy and keep the rest for parts. I sure hope the RCN get Cyclones that meet the agreed to specs. AFAIK, they still have serious deficiencies. Are they still grounded?

they were re-grounded if I remember correctly about a month ago they never announced anything new about them. In regards to base closures all that has needed to be said has been. I think the real savings in the CF is structural imo (ill speak more about the army because that is what I know).

I for the life of me do not understand why the army has 10 reserve brigades plus another five regional divisional hq? You know the army does not take these as serious combat formations when divisional commander posting are brigadier generals and brigade commander posting are colonels. Keep the reg force brigades but cut down the reserve brigades to five. One in Vancouver, one in Winnipeg, one in Toronto, one in Montreal, and one Halifax. Actually recruit the remaining reserve units to fully strength battalions/ regiments (800 odd personal). The unit locations would not change but you would not have all this bloated reserve hq for a battalion that manage a company battlegroup sized unit at most. We have such a large amount of our in strength in these needless or duplicate army hqs. Why have a joint-op regional commands when the army duplicates those through their divisional hq, its so crazy.

Only the 1st Divisional HQ based out of Kingston is deployable but has nothing organic to it outside orphaned units such as ew and a supposed aa regiment. Our construction works regiment is spread out across the country for some reason, even though they know have no base support purpose, they literally construct. Keep the 1st Divison as is give it actual combat enablers; rockets, aa, nbcr, mp, ew, field hospitals ext... Essentially pool all non-brigade army combat enablers into this divisonal hq.

Then leave another actually full divisonal hq to command the reserve brigades, top to bottom. That or directly place the reserve brigades under joint ops command task forces. While keeping the reg force brigades under 1st Divisional command. This would actually make joint-ops command, joint and useful.

When you think about it we have a joint ops commanded by a three star but nothing is organic to everything is seconded from the different branches in ad hoc manner, that has to change or the joints op command should heavily decreased in size. Either option works but what we have now does not its the worst of both worlds.

 

[pgclift]

Needless to say I am pretty cynical of junior and his minions. This preview for the Americans is likely nothing other than a test to see how low they can set the defence bar. Hopefully their American counterparts set them straight.

Amid the uncertainty of the defence review report and the future funding for the RCN and defence in general, it's pleasing to see that Canada still has an eye on their strategic interests as seen through the Southeast Asian deployment of HMCS Winnipeg and Ottawa under Poseidon Cutlass 17.

The deployment has them visiting numerous countries in the region including China but not Australia. That said there are some nice shots on the Australian Department of Defence website (sorry but cannot post link) of the two RCN ships in company with HMAS Ballarat conducting passage exercises and cross decking.

 

[ASSAIL]

Amid the uncertainty of the defence review report and the future funding for the RCN and defence in general, it's pleasing to see that Canada still has an eye on their strategic interests as seen through the Southeast Asian deployment of HMCS Winnipeg and Ottawa under Poseidon Cutlass 17.

The deployment has them visiting numerous countries in the region including China but not Australia. That said there are some nice shots on the Australian Department of Defence website (sorry but cannot post link) of the two RCN ships in company with HMAS Ballarat conducting passage exercises and cross decking.

Here's the link to the RAN news article.

HMAS Ballarat exercises with Canadian Navy | Navy Daily

 

[Novascotiaboy]

The deployment of two frigates so far from home port without the aid of a support ship. How sad for the RCN. There should be an AOR with them to support operations and provide our own fuel. The additional helicopters and medical facilities that we do not have in the event of loss of either of the two embarked choppers or serious injury to crew.

 

[ngatimozart]

The deployment of two frigates so far from home port without the aid of a support ship. How sad for the RCN. There should be an AOR with them to support operations and provide our own fuel. The additional helicopters and medical facilities that we do not have in the event of loss of either of the two embarked choppers or serious injury to crew.

That's where allies and friends come in. The RNZN, RN and RAN have always deployed far from home sans and with support ships.

 

[John Fedup]

Trump just doubled down on the 2% of GDP at the the NATO meeting. With Canada at slightly less than 1% it is no wonder junior was hiding in the back row during the group photo. In any event it will be interesting to see the defence review report in early June to ascertain if there is any serious effort to improve DND.

 

[Volkodav]

Trump just doubled down on the 2% of GDP at the the NATO meeting. With Canada at slightly less than 1% it is no wonder junior was hiding in the back row during the group photo. In any event it will be interesting to see the defence review report in early June to ascertain if there is any serious effort to improve DND.

He was probably worried Trump would shove him too.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Trump just doubled down on the 2% of GDP at the the NATO meeting. With Canada at slightly less than 1% it is no wonder junior was hiding in the back row during the group photo. In any event it will be interesting to see the defence review report in early June to ascertain if there is any serious effort to improve DND.

It was pretty blatant.

I don't agree with nearly anything Trump says, but I do agree many NATO members aren't carrying the load they should. Of course US presidents before Trump even came on to the scene have been complaining about it for a long time.

If you want to go to <1%, fine, withdraw out from NATO, you are ideologically opposed to the interests of that organisation. I don't think the 2% should be a hard and fast target, but there is an acceptable range. Most countries have plans now to increase and get to near 2%, (even Germany).

I look in to Justin's eyes and I see glassy inaction when Trump was speaking.

 

[gazzzwp]

It was pretty blatant.

I don't agree with nearly anything Trump says, but I do agree many NATO members aren't carrying the load they should. Of course US presidents before Trump even came on to the scene have been complaining about it for a long time.

If you want to go to <1%, fine, withdraw out from NATO, you are ideologically opposed to the interests of that organisation. I don't think the 2% should be a hard and fast target, but there is an acceptable range. Most countries have plans now to increase and get to near 2%, (even Germany).

I look in to Justin's eyes and I see glassy inaction when Trump was speaking.

From the tone of the message the US could well be approaching a major decision point with NATO. I do happen to agree with him. Regarding the 2%, a deal is a deal and just relying on the might of US military power is criminally negligent.

If the US withdraws from NATO commitments will Russia scale back it's nuclear arsenal or it's conventional forces in response? Only a fool would think so.

What would a Europe without US military presence look like? My answer would be frightening.

Also think what else the US has on it's plate right now. Afghanistan, DPRK and China, and possibly Iran. An almost certain showdown with DPRK is on the cards.

The countries of NATO should be ashamed of their negligence to their armed forces. Including UK of which I am a proud citizen.

Well done Donald and I hope someone is listening before it is too late.

 

[MrConservative]

I don't think the 2% should be a hard and fast target, but there is an acceptable range. Most countries have plans now to increase and get to near 2%, (even Germany).

It is a commitment signed on 2014 to move towards a 2% GDP spend in 10 years (2024). Yes - most countries have plans to do so and I suspect most will get there over time.

Yes a hard and fast target in a modern non war economy can very likely damage and create counter productive recessionary conditions. Lifting it by a steady 0.1 or 0.2% per annum over time to get to the 2% target is the methodical way to go. Boom bust economics is best left to property developers who have experience with that kind if thing.

 

[John Fedup]

I look in to Justin's eyes and I see glassy inaction when Trump was speaking.

Brain constipation.

 

[John Fedup]

Here is a link to Canada's defence review. Haven't read it yet but will comment in the RCAF and RCN threads later. I saw a CBC report saying the government will build 15 CSC ships but will only refurbish our subs to last until 2040! WTF would feel comfortable diving in a 50 year old SSK? I dread to think what is in the rest of this report but again I have not read the actual report yet.

http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/canada-defence-policy/docs/canada-defence-policy-report.pdf

 

[John Fedup]

I have three different devices, one cellular and two different WiFi trying to download this link, very slow and nothing yet...lets blame the Russians

 

[Novascotiaboy]

I tried and gave up. Couldn't wait the hours it would take. Took 10 minutes to get one MB. It's a 30 MB document.

I had hopes for something new but the public information to date reveals only already known information. How long has a MALE drone program been in the works. Hopefully the 88 advanced combat aircraft isn't a combination of UCAV and manned aircraft. Prefer the 88 manned plus at least a dozen or more Reaper types.

 

[John Fedup]

Hi Nova....no luck either...can't believe there is that much interest from our kumbayah electorate...pi$$ poor IT infrastructure is more likely or Putin's cyber crew are at work.

 

[BigM60]

Hi Nova....no luck either...can't believe there is that much interest from our kumbayah electorate...pi$$ poor IT infrastructure is more likely or Putin's cyber crew are at work.

I flicked through it this morning here in OZ. There is a fair bit in it that you really don't need to read. I will leave it to others on this site to work out what all the budget numbers actually mean but the aspiration appears to be to get it to $33B in 10 years time.

 

[vonnoobie]

Don't know what you guys complaining about, Started reading 2 minutes after clicking on the link. Take that Putin

List of the acquisitions in it:

Navy

- 15 CSC's
- 2 JSS's
- 5-6 Arctic OPS's
- Keep and modernize the submarines
- New/Enhanced ISR, Weapons and systems
- Upgrade light weight torpedoes

Army seems to be all current planned work but no major details

Airforce

- 88 Fighter aircraft
- CC-150 replacement
- CC-138 replacement
- CP-140 replacement
- Medium altitude UAV's

Special operations command

- Airborne ISR platform
- 605 extra personnel

More in each branch but at work and no time to list everything.

 

[John Newman]

Don't know what you guys complaining about, Started reading 2 minutes after clicking on the link. Take that Putin

List of the acquisitions in it:

Navy

- 15 CSC's
- 2 JSS's
- 5-6 Arctic OPS's
- Keep and modernize the submarines
- New/Enhanced ISR, Weapons and systems
- Upgrade light weight torpedoes

Army seems to be all current planned work but no major details

Airforce

- 88 Fighter aircraft
- CC-150 replacement
- CC-138 replacement
- CP-140 replacement
- Medium altitude UAV's

Special operations command

- Airborne ISR platform
- 605 extra personnel

More in each branch but at work and no time to list everything.

Yes all looks great on paper, but....

We all know the history of the Indian (I mean Canadian, ha ha!) Government and procurement system is like, not a good record, hopefully things will change (not holding my breath in the long term).

Bit of 'smoke and mirrors' in the announcement to increase from the current 0.9% of GDP to 1.4% of GDP by 2026-2027.

On the surface it looks like an increase of 0.5%, but if you read things a bit more closely (Table 2, page 46, Forecasted Defence Spending.., will explain what I mean), the Canadian Government has said (words to the effect):

"well actually we have been spending more than 0.9% this year, it's actually 1.19%, which includes defence spending by other departments..."

Bottom line is (now with 'other departments' defence spending included), spending won't be increasing by 0.5% (from 0.9 to 1.4), it's actually about 0.21% of GDP, that's smoke and mirrors to me!!!

As to the naval equipment announcements, 15 CSC (confirmation, not new), 2 JSS (not new), 5-6 Arctic Patrol ships (again not new), modernising the 4 Submarines to operate until around 2040, 50 year old hulls (new, but putting off the inevitable, what happens after 2040?? No plan of what happens).

As to the Army and Air Force increases, yes looks good on paper, but there is no details of how, what, when, all very vague.


The other very disturbing table I noticed is on page 98, "Figure 2: Actual and Forecasted Defence Budget (Cash Basis)"

As we know the plan is to increase to approx. C$33b by around 2026-27, then that table shows a 'decline' to about C$27b by around 2030-31, levels out for a few, then goes up slightly again.

So there is no 'sustained' permanent increase (as will happen here in Australia to get to 2% of GDP and stay at that level), it appears the Canadian Government is increasing spending for a 'period of time' and then bringing spending back down again!!!

Again, have a look at the table on page 98 and you will see exactly what I mean.

Smoke and Mirrors!!