Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6 ... 16  Next

I'm catching up to this thread a little late so I have a couple of points

Where would be the benefit of going to 4 Brigades? When is the last time an entire brigade depolyed? For at least the past decade we have been working with depolyments of battle groups or smaller (Afghanistan and maybe Bosnia (if you stretch the imagination a little) have been the only true deployments of a battle group). So why create the extra infrastructure and headquarters for a fourth brigade when we could more efficiently flesh out the current brigades.

As things stand now the Army only has one major deployment (rumour is that in Mar 06 it will get a second). So with three full size brigades (5000 more troops should do that quite nicely) we could easily have one brigade providing a battle group to Afganistan (can't see that one finishing anytime soon), a second providing something between a combat team and a battle group and a third in a training cycle. I don't see that being to much of a burden (if you do the math, and I'm horrible at it so I am relying on a buddies numbers here, that means that any given soldier should only be depolyed for 6 months out of every 3 to 4 years (depending on the size of the second mission)).

Speaking of infrastructure and headquarters, I think one of the biggest things we could do to make the CF more efficient is to create a CF Joint Headquarters. Get rid of 1 Div HQ, 1 CAD HQ and the MARCOM's and move them into one joint HQ's. This way we can start integrating our forces from the top down instead of the bottom up like we do now. Plus it should get rid of a few senior officers and that's always good

Now about strategic airlift, since I'm one of the guys in blue I would love to see us get some real strat lift, but seeing as how helicopters are my world I would rather see the money spent on heavy lift and attack choppers . Anyway we do need something to get us around the world but strat lift isn't all it's made out to be. It's great for getting really small groups around in a hurry but if you want to deploy anything with size to it you need sealift (or A LOT of big planes!!). A current roll-on-roll-off ship refitted with a flat top could easily get a battle group anywhere in the world in a few weeks, that's troops, vehicles, helicopters and enough supplies for the first couple of weeks on the ground. This also gives the recce teams, which can be flown in on a much smaller fleet of C-17's enough time to sort out the initial logistics.

I've heard quite a few arguments over what kind of aircraft would provide us with the best bang for the buck. It's usually a three way between the C-17, Antanov's and the Airbus. My personal favorite is the C-17 mainly due to spare parts, anyone who has spent time on a squadron knows how much of a pain spare parts can be, especially in todays world where companies won't ship them to you till you need them! The best example I can give is the Griffon helicopter, Bell built them and provides all the spare parts, either from Quebec or the US. Right now it can take upwards of a week to get a part!! And that's from the US, imagine what it would be like getting a part from Russia!!

And finally my chance to rant:

This huge amount of money the military is supposed to get...well if you believe that than do I have a deal for you . Look at the numbers, check page 222 of the budget:

http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget05/pdf/bp2005e.pdf

(I wish I could paste the graph in here) Basically the military gets 500 million for 05/06 and 600 million for 06/07. Than 1.5 B, 4.5 B and 7 B for every year after. Now lets be really honest about budgets, anymore than two years out and it doesn't count. New fiscal priorites pop up, governments change...I won't be the least bit surprised if in the 06/07 budget the amount for 07/08 isn't dropped to less than half a billion, this is the liberals we are talking about here they don't even know what a promise is never mind how to keep it!

Rant off

Cheers

   

Now we still have the airbourne as attachments to larger formations as companies. Are they worth having in that formate or should they be scrapped and go for an air mobile doctrine? I favor air mobile over airbourne as it is much more cost effective considering we will not be in the air superiority part of conflicts and what we really need is to get the heavy troops there as fast as possible. That is when we are effective and we need to get off of dependency of strat airlift from the US.

As for the 3 choices floating up they are all good, spare parts is definitely a deciding factor and that makes the C-17 a plus but price makes it a burden. Il-76 is way cheaper but reliability of supply raises concerns and Eurobus seems to be a compromise on the two but it can not take Bison and Coyote armoured vehicles so I'm not on the bus. All of these also means we will still not be making our equipment 'in house' any chance we could make something from scratch? Does the UK have any spare airlift capacity we could loan our bases out for?

How about the C-5 or the An-124?

   

I have enjoyed reading the last few posts. Nice to have real world opinions. I would have to say that all seem to ignore the state of the reserves and their place in the TO&E. Where do they fit in? If they were changed a little they could deploy in small unit formations. They would require some structural changes such as the fixed term of enlistment but they could add a lot more then a simple supply of warm bodies. Closer relations with reg force units would provide the relationships that Sapper speaks of and build their skill sets. they are simply put more bang for the bcuk if the real shit hits the fan in terms of generating numbers. For example how many reserve grunts would you get for an equivalent in reg force? I think the reg force should be fleshed out of course but in every other western democracy the reservist generally heavily out number the regs and for what appear to be perfectly sound reasons. this is not a reg vs reserve thing it's common sence. The attidude of the two componets of the army can be quite appalling towards one another and is extremely counterproductive in many instances.
Cheers
fred

   

The extra brigade would allow us the flexibility to deploy one if and when needed. If you look at all the Cdn troops in FRY until '95 you'll see that, numbers wise, it ran to a Brigade (-). The ability to deploy 2 Battle Groups to say 'stan or have a Bde that could rapidly deploy in support of a Battle Group would be a valuable asset, especially if things head south.

The idea of 1 Cdn Div disolving and becoming part of a Joint HQ is interesting. Either that or place 1 CAD, the MARCOM's and 1 Cdn Div under the Joint HQ, to ensure the unity of effort. That would leave the element commands pretty much the pers, training and equipping end. Sort of like a mini-yank system where say, CENTCOM employs the troops, but another command builds and equips them and ensures they are trained to the required standard. Some of those empire builders would not be happy. I don't know if it would work at our size of force though.

The Reserve system definately needs to be tuned up. Fixed periods of service, legislation supporting the soldier away from his job, and meaningful employment of units needs to be addressed. Holding the reservist to their committment needs work too. This gets rid of the parade night soldiers and other dead weight that units suffer with. Today's reservist has a buttfull more experience than 25 years ago. Those units having access to facilities such as CMTC would certainly help continue to develop them. No excuses, no prejudice, everyone performs to the same level.

We can't afford the BS or social re-engineering anymore. Get a ruthless reconfiguration done that maximizes our limited resources and let the troops get on with what they are supposed to do.

   

Hey sapper,
take a look at the news section on the DND site. reservists seem to be bedoing lots of urban stuff nowadays and they are even letting them play with heleicopters.
Cheers
fred

   

Just spitballing here - Maybe the Il-76 or An-124 could be manufactured under license in Canada. This might resolve some of the concerns that have been raised about spares availability.
DeHavilland in Toronto would easily have the ability to manufacture these planes.

   

As far as carriers go, we could probably get a small old british one and outfit it with Joint Strike Fighters. Buying/building an American style supercarier is out if the question.

I don't think that DeHaviland could build the An-124 as it is one of the 5 largest aircraft in the world. We would be able to make most of the replacement parts for it here, but not the entire plane without building a new manufacturing plane, same goes for nearly all transport planes.

   

Yeah, a new plant might be necessary, which would add a lot to the cost. Too bad, because from an engineering know-how standpoint, DeHavilland would be a natural for such a project.

   

Thanks for the heads up Fred! I just read in the paper on the DND site

http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/spotnews_e.html

(14 Mar page) That they are forming a monopoly on the An and planning to put the screws to their customers. Don't look good for us!

   

Ok, re airlift. I can’t believe people would want to buy Ilyushins or Antonovs (any mark/model). Sod the price, they are third-world aircraft built by a country that is grinding to a halt.

The C17 is the only way to go. The C17 is way superior to any other cargo aircraft on the planet and can lift an MBT (if we ever get them again).
The Politico’s could buy them, build the toilet seats in Quebec for ten times what the yanks would charge and everybody will be happy.

I like the idea of a small carrier, like the Invincible class that the Brits have, I’m not sure if buying any used ships from the Brits is such a good idea after getting the pieces of crap subs we bartered for.
Why not build a small carrier with the Spanish or the USMC or some other navy that operates Harrier type a/c? A new carrier/ support vessel would last 30-40 years. Good for air support, air land and the odd disaster relief mission. Plus the pork barreling on the west/east coasts and Quebec would make them a good option. (Do I hear CarrierScam?)

The whole Mobile Command (what a crappy name for the Army) needs to restructure and become like a small version of the USMC or the Brit Air Mobile Brigades (24 and 16 Air Mobile). Or maybe even the Australian military. We need to be self contained and able to deploy anywhere, with the bare essentials of everything. Reform the Airborne but make it a Regt that recruits 18 year olds not the best or worst of the Inf Regts. Make entry way tougher than the line infantry regts , a kind of Rangers for the CF.

We need to rethink and become kick ass like we used to be before the Liberals killed us.

The Ozzies kick total ass compared to us for about the same dollar value. They are a lean mean fighting machine. They also have the political will we lack. Just checkout their web sites. I could never see the DND being so tactical. http://www.army.gov.au and http://www.defence.gov.au/opcatalyst

The Royal Australian Navy site is worth a sniff too at http://www.navy.gov.au (yes they actually call their Navy that dreaded "Royal" word ...Paul Hellyer would not like the Ozzies!)

Anyway just few bones for consumption.

   

[quote="dgthe3"]As far as carriers go, we could probably get a small old british one and outfit it with Joint Strike Fighters. Buying/building an American style supercarier is out if the question.

DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT BUY ANY BOATS FROM THE BRITISH.
Just sayin'

   

ok, ok, i take it back, we shouldn't buy any more Brit boats, but i like the idea of using what the USMC has. A small ship that can transport a small land force to the battle area and provide a bit of air support. Good if the area in question does not need troops there right away, to give our troops time get there.

   

Sapper: I can't see us sending a Brigade Group anywhere in the near future. If we had to I have a feeling things would be going really bad somewhere important, at which point it doesn't matter if we have 3 or 4 Brigades everyone is going to be packing up their kit. That's probably the biggest reason I don't see the 4th brigade being a priority. Plus I think having 3 bn's with 3 armoured and engineering sqn's, and 3 gun bty's, as support, gives us more flexibility than 4, 2 bn, brigades. Also this way if we did deploy a brigade the classic two up one back still works (or in a three block war, 2 bn's working one on R+R).

Even with the Russian's creating a monopoly don't count on seeing any kind of strat airlift in the next couple of years. It's pretty low on the new CDS's priority list and very expensive (whether you buy Antanov's or C-17's). I think you might see a plan to purchase some new (or at least new to us) transport ships first. A WASP class ship would be perfect for what we need but it carries the dreaded "Amphibious Assault Ship" name and as we all know the liberals would never purchase anything that sounds that aggressive . There are quite a few designs for roll-on-roll-off transports, all we need to do is add a flat top for helicopters. We could probably buy s few RORO's and than get a Quebec plant to add the flat top aftermarket.

How do you improve the reserves? Big question and we have spent a lot of money on trying to figure it out! Anyone heard about the land force reserve restructure? That whole process started when I joined the army reserve in the early ninties (than I saw the light and started wearing blue ) and it still hasn't been implemented. Before you can change the reserves I think you have to decide what the role of the reserves is going to be. So what should the role of the reserves be? Well I don't think we need reserve regiments that are fully deployable on their own, I really believe that the reserves, in normal peacetimes ops, are there to augment the regs. The reserves are just that, a reserve, we maintain a large network of brigades and units so that if the balloon goes up we have the framework for an entire Division.

On top of this we have an issue of geography, we live in the second largest country in the world yet we only have 4 Army bases, 2 Naval bases and 6 Air bases (operational bases that is). That's not nearly enough to cover the entire country in case of attack (such a slim concept that it really doesn't apply) or more likely in case of a disaster. Why do you think every city has one or more reserve units? They can react with troops and equipment a lot faster than the reg force can. So what am I getting at? I think we have to start re-rolling some of the reserves into more specialist trades. More engineers, service support, medical, MP, NBC specialists, plus infantry (no one fills a sand bag like an infanteer ). These jobs are also important over-seas, either peacemaking or in support of DART, so we make reservists more employable on tours so we can push more of the reg force to the pointy end.

I have a few more ideas about the reserves but it's getting late and I'm off to wonderful Wainwright for the next couple of nights (but at least I get to fly ) so more to follow.

Cheers

   

EyeBrock: Time to take off your blinkers! Russian aircraft are hardly "third world" and Russia itself is not "grinding to a halt", but is instead showing clear signs of economic renewal. Russia is actually widely recognised for its expertise in designing and manufacturing this type of aircraft!

For two billion dollars, Canada could acquire maybe 8 C-17s. For the same sum we could get roughly 40 Il-76s. Which option do you think would provide the Canadian Forces with greater capability? I've said it before and I will say it again: It's time to start thinking outside the box! We cannot afford to wallow in past prejudices...

An aircraft carrier, no matter how small, would not be a wise use of what are always limited resources. A better idea would be for the Navy to acquire two vessels like the American "San Antonio" class, which would be more suitable to a greater variety of purposes than an aircraft carrier.

The San Antonio Class

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6 ... 16  Next