Canada Kicks Ass
State of Canadian Forces

REPLY

Previous  1  2  3  4  5 ... 16  Next



SprCForr @ Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:38 am

Freaker Freaker:
I agree that the Army is useful for a variety of reasons and purposes, Dan, but for safeguarding Canadian sovereignty the Army is far less useful than the Navy or Air Force...


???? Really? How?

Russian equipment may be cheap but the spare parts are going to be a nightmare. Same for repair and maintenance. Il-76's are old. We would be back to buying obsolete equipment again. May as well just buy a heap of old Hercs or Starlifters.

"We could buy equipment from The U.S."

Why not? We make a good chunk of the components here already. Buy basic hulls and finish them here. It's only the politicians that would have a fit.

   



Canadaka @ Fri Mar 11, 2005 12:00 pm

well that is what was going to happen with the Avro arrow and the iroquies (can't spell) engine for it.

Actually I have no idea how much, if any military equipment is made in Canada, anyone know?

   



SprCForr @ Fri Mar 11, 2005 12:10 pm

Take a look at that Arrow thread.

Equipment made in Canada? Generally,

Trucks- 1/4 ton, 5/4 ton, 2 1/2 ton, HLVW made in Quebec
LAV III- made in London
M113 refurbishment and modernisation- Quebec
Ships-east coast
Rifles-Ont
Electronics-numerous plants throughout Canada
Uniforms-domestically designed and produced.

it goes on and on...

   



dgthe3 @ Fri Mar 11, 2005 1:16 pm

As far as the transports go, i don't know wha tis still in production and what isn't. Much of the American stuff isn't and the Russian, i have no clue. however, buying equipment is often a political statement. It say who you are friends with in the world. We cannot build stuff like a huge transport plane because of a lack of infrastructure and market, even though we may have the technical skills to make one. As a result, we will end up buying American, which is better than the Russian's anyways. I just brought up the idea because we hitched a ride on a Russian plane and the American equivelant isn't made anymore.

   



Streaker @ Fri Mar 11, 2005 1:53 pm

For the sake of clarification it should be noted that a modernised and enlarged Ilyushin Il-76 is available new, straight from the factory and at a fraction of the cost of the C-17 which the Armed Forces are so unrealistically fixated on. So no problems with spares etc...

For Canadian needs the American plane is not better but rather worse than the Il-76. Why? Because the Canadian Forces have such a tight budget. We simply can't afford to waste money on a "Cadillac" plane (C-17) when there is a perfectly good "Chevy" available (Il-76).

Russia is no longer our enemy. Why should we discriminate against them when they offer such a compelling alternative to a grossly overpriced American product which we simply cannot afford? It's time to start thinking outside the box!

Regarding Canadian sovereignty, the question that must be asked is "where is it threatened?" The answer to that is "in the arctic", and that chiefly regards the Northwest Passage. Well, the Army is pretty useless for protecting Canadian sovereignty in the Northwest Passage against intruding submarines, isn't it? What we need to patrol this waterway are suitable navy vessels along with planes. The other issue we have in the north is Hans Island. The Army could indeed play a valuable role in asserting Canadian control over this island.

   



SprCForr @ Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:04 pm

OK, The Northwest Passage it is, but there is still alot of other land out there. Ships traversing a pretty much unusable passage is a serious concern. And don't forget about them pesky subs too! So to monitor them Maritime Patrol Air is better. Still won't be able to do much about them. But we can't even be bothered to purchase a few more patrol aircraft. If the govt was semi-serious about monitoring our borders why didn't they take even this simple first step? If we were seriously concerned we should have bought SSN for their under ice capability. But we wouldn't because that has the dreaded "nuclear" conotation. Never mind it's the best tool for the job.

If the Il-76 meets the need then put it in the competition and see what makes the grade. I won't even pretend to be an expert on the air element, so I can't comment on a/c qualities. What makes the Il-76 better than a C-17? Is it just cost?

We need an air element weenie! 8)

   



Guest @ Sat Mar 12, 2005 10:20 am

Thanks for you thoughts and opinions, guys.
Okay, to adress the RoyalHighlander's doubts about the liberals' proposal for the peacekeeping brigade, read this: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-sr-pkb-intro.htm . This article discusses the misuse of a 'peacekeeping' brigade and some interesting alternate proposals coming straight from the soldiers themselves.
Now as for the airborne battalion, I'm not suggesting we copy it EXACTLY from the old C.A.R., but base alot of the foundation on the regiment. General Hillier has made it clear that he is interested in purchasing heavy-lift helicopters for the CF [ http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-helicopters.htm ] (i.e. Chinooks) [ p://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-helo-ch47.htm ]. Instead of being trained solely for airborne use, the new airborne regiment would have a dual airborne-air assault capability. Equipped with both tactical (Griffins) and medium-lift (Chinooks) helicopters this battalion could be quite diverse and powerful. This would be based a little along the lines of the British 16 (Air assault) Brigade [ http://www.army.mod.uk/16_air_asslt_bde/contents.htm ] , which trains in both heliborne and airborne operations. This battalion could become rapidly deployable to any peacekeeping/making, internal conflict, three block war, or even disaster relief operation until heavy reinforcements (i.e. mechanized battalions) arrive. (The rest of the 5,000 soldiers that are not used on the airborne battalion could be spread out through the already under-manned mechanized brigades).
Now, to address the airlifter disaster. Strategic Airlift is not cheap. The Liberals have been and are still trying to avoid the topic of purchasing new airlifters for the CF. DND had initiated a 'Future Strategic Airlifter' competition, with the C-17 [ http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-airlift-c17.htm ] as the main runningmate. Unfortunatly, high costs for the C-17 ran the project to the ground and the project was scrapped. Unfortunatley, the problem of a lack of Strategic Airlift is not going to go away. Whle the government fumbles about forking out the cash to buy the new planes, our aged Hercules' are wearing out. My proposal is that we spend the $5 billion(approx) needed to buy about 8 C-17s. Then buy maybe 15 brand new C-130Js [ http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-fsa4.htm ] for support. Sure, it sounds like alot of money, but just take a minute to look at this. If we buy these airlifters now, we won't have to worry about buying new cargo planes for about...oh...let's see....maybe 3-4 decades. That's a long time. And with this new strategic-lift capability the CF would not only be hassle-free of any cargo plane issues for those 4 decades, but Canada would have a leading strategic-lift capability in the world.

Thanks

   



Nate_7 @ Sat Mar 12, 2005 10:24 am

(Sorry, I forgot to sign in :? , but that was my post :wink: )

   



SprCForr @ Sat Mar 12, 2005 11:14 am

Ahh...airmobile vice airborne. That's a different animal. IMHO the airmobile concept is more suitable to our force composition. It would provide an increase in our air recce assets, increase hugely the mobility of a Bn, provide flexibility and crucial planning expertise etc. It would give the Airforce a boost as well I imagine. Yep, that idea works for me.

Keep jump capability as it is now. Our days of mass airborne operations are over, but the skill set needs to be kept alive.

   



Nate_7 @ Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:31 pm

Thanks Spcforr, i agree completely. Though I believe even a battalion of paras can accomplish alot if deployed to area of conflict relatively quickly.

If you're interested in the airborne, I recommend "Tom Clancy's: Airborne". Great read.

   



SprCForr @ Sat Mar 12, 2005 4:30 pm

Done it and read it. How about Clancy's cavalry book?

   



Nate_7 @ Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:00 pm

No, I haven't read that one, but I was thinking of buying it, along with Marine Expeditionary Unit. I just recently bought "Tom Clancy's Shadow Warriors: A look inside the Special Forces"

   



Nate_7 @ Sat Mar 12, 2005 6:39 pm

I found this on the 'Canadian and American Stragetic Review' website. Tell me what you guys think:



Ever since the 4 CMBG [4 Canadian Mechanized Battle Group] closed its doors,
we have been using three Infantry Battalions, plus one Armoured Regiment.

But we used to do business the way our allies are doing it now – using the old '2 plus 1' formula. (The new US 'Units of Action' are configured this way.)

Suppose that the [anticipated 5,000 new recruits] are used to fill out existing units and support elements.

[Could we not then] reconfigure the existing Infantry Battalions and Armoured Units into four Brigades (rather than the current three)?

The new fourth Light Brigade [would be comprised] of three battalions. (One or more could be parachute-qualified.) Four usable brigades – anyone see any short-falls?

Many of our allies seem to be comfortable with this basic '2 plus 1' structure, on to which attachments can be grafted, based on mission requirements.

I'm not sure that we need a full 5000 to fill out the existing Regular brigade units, but I'm sure the Navy would also be happy to get another ship's company (about 200-300) out of the deal.

In any case, I also agree that we don't necessarily need 'square' brigades. We could form a fourth brigade from existing units.

But we still have a shortage of guns and tanks. We also lack the infrastructure for a new brigade garrison, unless it could be co-located with an existing brigade.

We should be able to field four Brigades (even with mostly existing equipment):

One Heavy Brigade:

• 1 tank regiment (real tanks)
• 2 mechanized battalion in tracked vehicles
-I F V [infantry fighting vehicles] and/or
-APC [armoured personnel carriers]
• 1 SP arty [self-propelled artillery] regiment

Two Medium Brigades:

• 1 Direct Fire Support regiment (the new wheeled gun system)
• 2 mechanized battalion in LAV III
• 1 artillery regiment towed guns (including):
• 2 batteries 105mm [C3 howitzer]
• 1 battery 155mm [hypothetical]

One Light Brigade:

• 3 light infantry battalions
• 1 light artillery regiment LG-1 howitzer

All of the infantry battalions would have their integral combat support returned – pioneers, mortars and anti-tank.

An Army aviation regiment (tactical helicopters) would be desirable as well, though the necessary equipment would need to be bought from the ground up.

The current CH-146 Griffon just doesn't cut it.

   



SprCForr @ Sun Mar 13, 2005 1:08 pm

Let see,

1 CMBG (Edmonton): It seems to be shaping up as the Heavy Brigade. Make it so.

2 CMBG (Petawawa): Pretty darn close to a Medium now.
5 CMBG (Valcartier): Same as above.

4 CLBG (Gagetown): Basing it here makes sense from an infrastructure point of view. The large training present helps. Div Sp units (such as 4 ESR)based here as well. The Lt Bn from each Brigade to flesh out the Light Brigade.

Div HQ (Kingston): Make it operational, instead of what seems to be a way-station, rubberstamping organisation.

The pioneers/mortars thing is already done. The move seems to be developing towards sub-unit affiliations (more formally than done previously) with their Battle Groups. Example 11 Fd Sqn 1 CER supports the 1 PPCLI Battle Group. 1 VP has no Pioneers but got the services of an Engr Fd Sqn. 12 Fd Sqn supports 2 VP, etc, etc. The pay off comes when the units work together a few times and a relationship develops. The foundation is already present from the numerous deployments each has gone through. With 1 VP losing the manning positions of the Pioneers, but they literally move next door into 1 CER, what the final shortfall of, say 1 CER, would be after I have no idea. I couldn't see it making much of a dent in the 5000 extra positions. Would that kind of horse trading should leave some room for the new Brigade, the air element, and maybe a ships company for a new transport capable of hauling a Brigade?

It is a simple fact that Canada will never have a large Armed Forces. That's fine, but there is no reason why it can't be remade into something much more flexible and effective. With common-sense, politcal will and smart equipment acquisitions we could end up with the capability of punching far above our weight again.

It's good to have a fist, but you have to swing the arm to deliver the blow.

   



Nate_7 @ Sun Mar 13, 2005 1:56 pm

Agreed. Basicly, the transformation of the brigades from 3 to 4 would decrease the size of each of the individual brigades from 3 inf btlns to 2, with one amored (heavy or light) btln. The extra 3 battlions that were stood down would form a new brigade, a light infantry brigade. So, basicly, you're right, the 5,000 extra troops would not really be needed for this transformation. But the CF as a whole (air, land, maritime) could DEFENATLEY make use of 5,000 more troops to fill out the ranks a little and bring up the Op tempo. 2 inf btlns per brigade, fully-manned and equipped, is better then 3 btlns per brigaded, undermanned and ill-equipped. The current acceptable status for the size of the CF is somewhere around 60,000, though we have only 53,000.

As for the locations where they would be based, I agree with your proposal.

   



REPLY

Previous  1  2  3  4  5 ... 16  Next