State of Canadian Forces

Mario, I can't believe you said this.....

We are not an attack force.
The usual deployment for us is for peacekeeping. Not an invasion force...

What do think the Candian Forces role is? Building hospitals?
The job of the military is to kill the enemies of the state or the enemies of our chosen allies. Get real!

Please tell me you are not a serving member of the CF.

"You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war."
[font=Times New Roman]Churchill's remark after Chamberlain returned from signing the Munich pact with Hitler[/font]

Thanks Nate_7. I guess new equiptment would be better than 25 year old crap

Unfortunately Freaker you really get what you pay for in the military hardware world. I wish there was a cheaper and viable option to C17’s but I don’t see it. We could lease them like the RAF did (they now have purchased the aircraft). They have four but do have other strategic lift a/c. I think we could get away with four and 15 or so C130J’s.

I have been convinced by other posters that a small carrier is unviable. I think Nate is bang on with the San Antonio class ships as a way to go.

I agree that the EH101 is good aircraft, but the Liberals will never order it after the political fiasco that Chretien brought to bear on it.

Have you ever been on a IL-76? They are not a good aircraft, whether they are re-engined or not. They are similar in capability to the old Starlifters and not very wide compared to the Globemaster.

As a serving member of the CF I also think you should remember we are always training for war. Air Command is not Air Canada with a beret. It is a fighting force. Our doctrine has been watered and the CF is becoming a neutered combat force.

I think the “peacekeeper” attitude is a tad piss poor for a member of a fighting force. One day the CF will go into combat. Attitude and training will make or break the Canadians in that combat zone.

Do we really want to be known around the world as a bunch of fat chicks in blue berets?

I agree with eyebrock's last post. I was having a discussion with my dad the other day about Canada's military role in the modern world. He was suggesting that Canada focus only on peacekeeping, since we are so famous for peacekeeping/making around the world, and let military powerhouses (U.S., Britian, etc.) do the real fighting. He suggested that we should focus primarily on training our army in peacekeeping, while using the air force to transport the army and the navy to protect the coasts. This got me a little annoyed because I have come to realize that this is how most Canadians think about the military (including most overpayed, suit-and-tie politicans in Ottawa). But I basicly responded to him by saying this...Every century, on average, there is a big war. And we have to be prepared for that. We can't let our allies defend our soverienty.What happens if...tomorrow...the North Korean army rolled over the 38th parallel? We have picked at our armed forces so much that we would not be able to respond as quickly to an actual 'WAR' as we would be able to about 10 years ago. I don't think our armed forces are strictly a peacekeeping force, but I do believe by the government and public attitude that we are defenatly geared in that direction.

Now, back to technical stuff :wink:

.
I think that eyebrock has the right idea with buying a mixed C-17/C-130J transport force. Both brand new planes that would be able to last us a few decades. Combined with maybe the 3 San Antonio class ships that the U.S. has up for sale and that makes a winning combination. Now I KNOW that this proposal is expensive, but I have stated numereous times before the strategic transport is expensive and we have to invest the money and put forth the cash if we want to see results.
Now, as for the helicopter, I think the only real choice is the chinook

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-helo-ch47.htm
And I know what you guys are all thinking, they have been in service for a long time and are old pieces of crap. But, the U.S. plans to upgrade their chinooks to keep them in service for about another 30 years, so spare parts and maintenance won't be an issue.

Thanks

The Chinook is a great aircraft. I personally had a few fun filled runs to Beruit from Akrotiri in them. They are also easily deployed in a C17.

Nate thanks for the vote of confidence. Our views on 'training for war' are probalby a minority view in Canada at the moment, but hey, they all thought Churchill was paranoid about the rise of the Nazi's.

Prior planning prevents piss-poor performance. All the "p's" as the Brits say.

We need to plan for the worst and hope for the best.

A side issue on the peacekeeping stuff, we are 32nd on the list at the moment. We have just edged out Togo (that famous peacekeeping nation) by 5 troops. We have a whole 327 deployed troops in hotspots around the world. Argentina has triple that and Pakistan has 9000 troops deployed.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/

Put bluntly we are again living on past glories, even when it comes to peacekeeping. Maybe that would be good thread to start?

Of course our UN manning went down. Our NATO missions went up. Way up. That is where the bulk of the manpower is now. You'll see our UN numbers rise if the Sudan mission happens. Besides, lists never tell the whole story. It's like a body count.

"...think the “peacekeeper” attitude is a tad piss poor for a member of a fighting force. One day the CF will go into combat. Attitude and training will make or break the Canadians in that combat zone..."

A tad? How about a major mistake no soldier can afford to make? BTW, the typical line grunt on any mission faces combat on a daily basis. Since you seem to be unaware of this simple truth, please allow me to help clarify. Combat is more than shooting etc. The average soldier (line grunt, F echelon, not REMF) prepares for it on a daily basis. For example: A dismounted patrol is a daily fact of life for a good chunk of the troops. Since you don't know when or where fighting could break out, you have to be ready for it at all times. Battle procedure is followed to ensure you are prepared. It is a complacent attitude during tasks like this that leads to disaster, so you have to stay switched on at all times. Just because the patrol may end with nothing happening doesn't mean it will tommorrow. Combat is the same. You don't know if the enemy will stand and fight, but you prepare for the fact that he will. The other fact is, and you should know this, is that only a small percentage of news ever gets to the media. Alot more happens out there than you think. It's combat for those who are involved. Plain and simple. If sending out the '18s on a mission is not combat, what is it then? In the words of Red Foreman it must be "playtime party fun". The "attitude and training" is our strength and what made us and keeps us effective. Spend time with the Field Force if you get the chance (and if you can hack it :twisted:

) , you'll then see what I'm saying live and in colour.

P.S. I think the Airforce has it right. Send the officers out to fight and die. Let the men stay back!

Sapper, good to see that not all the CF has resigned itself to peace keeping. I was being nice when I said " a tad piss poor".

Anybody in any part of the CF who doesn't want to pick up a rifle and point it at bad guys is really in the wrong job. Marios post made me extremely concerned. Maybe he should join Air Canada and play with avionics there instead.

Even crabs (Air Force) have to shoot back. We lost a few RAF guys in the Falklands because of their "I don't do fighting" attitude. The Brits now make sure that the RAF can at least defend themselves now. How many Air Command guys have ever been on a fighting patrol? The RAF guys in Basra do it all the time.

We need to sharpen the teeth end otherwise the CF will just be about fat chicks in blue berets.

PS Sapper, thanks for the invite but I did ten years with the Brits, digging 6x4x2's, getting shot at in the Falklands, Beruit and various places that I'm not going to mention. I leave it to you guys, you seem like you have the right attitude!

Eyebrock,
I didn't intend to single you out (that's why I copied it instead of quoting you directly, sorry 'bout that), that blurb seemed to illustrate some common misconceptions in the minds of many people. That and the "We're just peacekeepers!" crap that is uttered by everyone who HASN'T done an Op. The "Mario" mentality will be the death of us yet.

But, I agree, we're getting so small that we can't afford that kind of mind set. It is now more important than ever that we become a single, mutually supporting team. In the past, there was only a nod in the direction of "joint" operations, but everyone was still wrapped up in their own little empire. With the changing roles that the Airforce and Navy seem to be facing in the near future, is it not a viable role for, say, the Airforce to provide direct support to the Army? I'm thinking a USMC style support role. If we are leaving the air superiority business is this not a suitable task for us? Is it looked upon as an abomination by the hard Airforce trades? Moving mud may suck, but it sure helps win battles. What could the Army do to help contribute to the Airforce mission? This co-operation has to run both ways right? We have our blinders too.

Well, I can't say much here, since I'm not in the CF, but I intend to be (airforce), and I'm glad to see that I was proven wrong about our army moving towards the direction of a peacekeeping force, and that we still have some warriors.

As far as interop btwn airforce and army is concerned, I think there is DEFENATLY room for improvement. Between airforce and navy is okay, because they have seakings stationed on the ships and auroras patrolling the coasts, but I have not heard about a single exercise combining interop with CF-18s giving air support to ground troops. As an airforce junkie, I think we could make so much more out of our fighter force in terms of supporting the army. Our Griffins' main job is to support the army, but (i have heard many times) that they are being used too much as 'air taxis' and not as a strategic air assault platforms. But I do think commanders are trying to change this. I was reading up on 2 RCR's webpage recently, and I found this information on EX Winged Warrior, a helo assault ex.
http://www.army.dnd.ca/2RCR/Exercises/E ... index.html

Thanks guys

This is somewhat strange. My opinion about peacekeeping vs war fighting is not unique (at least I don't think so). It is pretty much "mainstream" amongst soldiers (For those who are unaware, airmen and sailors are not soldiers, just as grunts are not airmen nor sailors). Is my POV not as common amongst the other environments?

Sapper, I totally agree with you. The USMC model would really be a great idea. The Ozzies have a really good structure too. Plus they still have "Royal" all over their kit. That Royal gives you the tactical edge mate! You guys need to still call them by the individual service title to maintain esprit-de-corps, but you could just recruit pilots in the army, make a small air corps to fly everything except strategic air. Let the yanks and the NATO sqns in Goose Bay do Dominion defence, they do a chunk of it now in the summer.
The Air Force CF18 sqn s could be mixed with pongo's as pilots , flying and fighting side by side with Air Force troops. Make the 2 i/c an Air Corps guy. Incorporate a senior air force into every regiment or expand Air Liasons and ingerate them into the army regiments. The USMC has F18's and C130's. They are a great model for the CF. What we have is not working now.