Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6 ... 9  Next

It was before my time. The information I have on it comes from my step father (who has since died) and from what I read on Canadian military history. As I have come to understand it there where 3 distinctly different branches of service and acted as such creating a huge waste. The military was downsized since the high point of WWII but there was still a large number of servicemen in and 1964 would seem to me the time that the bulk of those who served then would be punching out for retirement and ideal time for reform. Hellyer was the 1st to do something about it and I was left with the distinct impression that what was started wasn't finished. I am not Hellyer, and if he responds to my request perhaps he can clarify some issues, but it seems consistent to what has happened since then. Example: The Bonnie

She had a major four month refit in early 1963, to be followed by a long half-life refit at Davie Shipbuilding's yard at Lauzon, Quebec, from April 1966 to September 1967. This refit was designed to carry the ship well into the 1970's. It not only ran vastly over its initial estimate of $8.0 million, to $12.0 million, but took much longer than planned. Adding to the complexity and cost, the ship was kept in commission, with most of her crew retained on board or nearby. She left Lauzon for Halifax on 13 September 1967 for sea trials and re-working-up to efficiency by both the crew and the air detachment. At the end of January 1968 the Royal Canadian Navy as such ceased to exist upon unification of the ared forces. The ship's air squadrons then became the reponsibility of Air Command for development and training and of Maritime Command for their operational use, a clumsy but workable arrangment.

On 3 April 1969 the Government announced a "phased reduction in Canada's NATO commitments". a harbinger of the end of Naval Air in carriers, for attention was swinging to the somewhat cheaper operation of helicopters from destroyers. Saving money was the key, with major cuts in personnel, and Bonaventure's 1,350-man crew and her aircraft ate u a lot of both. In the summer of 1969 a planned docking at Saint John was cancelled in favour of a "self refit" alongside in Halifax. Then, via CBC radio, word reached the ship while on a NATO exercise in mid-Atlantic in September 1969 that Bonaventure was to be scrapped and her Tracker squadron disbanded. The ship's company was needed to man the new 280 Class helicopter-carrying destroyers just being laid down. So Bonaventure became the Navy's contribution to the defence cuts and the almost 50 percent reduction in Canadian manpower contributed to NATO. The last operational flight was on 28 October 1969. In January 1970, Bonaventure carried a Battlion of the Royal 22e Regiment to Jamaica for a tropical training exercise. Three months later she was sent to northern Norway, to Narvik, to bring back Canadian troops from a NATO exercise when their planned transport was not available. This was her last service.

She was decommissioned at Halifax on 3 July 1970 and sold for scrap and broken up by the end of 1971.

Hellyer was out by September 18, 1967. It would then make Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux responsible, not Hellyer, for the phased reduction in Canada's NATO commitments.

   

The history lesson surrounding the Bonaventure is interesting albeit a very truncated reprise of events. Would you like to know how everyone onboard felt on the day the CBC (not an admiral or the captain) announced her demise? I was there that day.

What is left out of your very accurate chronology is the one figure who influenced the decision to reduce Canada's NATO committment and subsequently scrap a very valuable ship -- Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

Trudeau had no use at all for the Armed Forces in any form. The reduction in NATO committment was directed by him to Cadieux to provide funding for his long list of social programs, most of which were wasteful beyond imagination. He reduced defence spending and cut defence priorities, especially standing NATO forces at a time when the threat was increasing. A simple fact is that he could not have done it unless the protective umbrella of the United States had been available. He went on to perpetrate even greater cuts in the services until NATO finally threatened him with direct trade sanctions and a reassessment of Canada's status within the treaty. It got even worse with respect to the NORAD and CANUSUK Pacific agreements, but that is yet another story.

Suffice to say that in the eyes of anyone in the service and anyone who understands defence force structure, Hellyer, Trudeau and Chretien are viewed as something less than horse manure and the key individuals responsible for the current state of the armed services.

   

Trudeau snubbed the military and the US. He would not of been able to beat the Conservatives without the social spending. As much as guns don't kill people, people do so to elected officials don't rule nations, people do. Do you think if what Trudeau did was not acceptable to the public at large that it would have passed? Now as far as your argument about not enough has been spent on the CAF your preaching to the choir but you have not sold me on the fact that Hellyer is an opportunist out for his own gain. I will agree he was the axe man and that the senior officers agreed the idea was a good plan but the unification ordeal does not sound as if it came out as intended. Hellyer was let go by Trudeau if he was playing along with Trudeau's plan to take the military down why would he have ditched him for a housing program? My point to all of this is as much as we want to pin blame on one man it still is the people who determine what laws are passed and what ideas are socially acceptable. Clearly the idea of lowering the military was 'in vogue' during the 1960's. It kept us out of Vietnam. I find it hard to believe that a country that elected Trudeau would be gung-ho for military spending. I can't see something like the regimental system being dismantled or even downsized without upheaval, remember the disbandment in disgrace of the Airborne? Everything ends badly otherwise it wouldn't end but clearly the people were not interested in maintaining Canada's commitments for military spending and saw the US domino theory as flawed. I disagree with how this mentality has played out and have been trying to devise how to get Canada back into the fight to be able to at least be able to defend it's own turf before we end up another Puerto Rico. But given the mentality of the time no political party in Canada would be able to run on a platform of militarism and expect to win vs Trudeau's social programs and that a cold political reality. Hanging that on all on Hellyers head seems excessive.

   

I'm not hanging it all on Hellyer's head. Read back.

   

Understood. Frankly, I understand entirely your point on Hellyer and the luggage he has. It makes it impossible to run on a reform for the military platform and have what most in the know consider the person who started the mess in the 1st place. Stephen Harper has put forth the idea of a helicarrier as his answer. The NDP didn't say a peep (shocker) and the liberals, well they added 5,000/3,000 troops, to me that's a paint job on a house that is falling down. Given the options I am not optimistic.

   

The current Liberal emphasis is a promising start. It remains to be seen if they follow through. The present increase in funding could easily change since it isn't "this year's money".

I have some doubts about the Conservative promises. We've been there before and they have fumbled rather badly. I do believe that a joint operations assault ship (it isn't a carrier in the truest sense) is an excellent idea and puts the Armed Forces into a mode which fits today's needs. An example is HMS Ocean. It just needs a cargo fuel capability to round it out.

A point about Hellyer. If he had stuck to the original plan (Integration), and supervised the transformation of the headquarters properly, we wouldn't be faced with the current Defence Review, which is likely to recommend a tighter joint operations organization. He initially had a good idea and it would have proven out in today's environment.

   

You have to be able to walk before you can run. A carrier, ever the joint operations assault ship, to me seems at fist glance a bad idea. I would like to see a more domestic, long range, ASW surveillance like a P-7 before we go for assault ships. The conservatives proposal sounds like a lot of splash to grab headlines but no hard attention to logistical details. We could use a strategic airlift that gets our heavy equipment out as well and we have precious little of that and what we do have can not move our Cougars or Bison's.

   

If the Mexican military did anything to US citizens on US land, I just can't imagine the American people sitting by. I still remember the neo-nazi guy up in the hills in Idaho who had a bunch of guns, and the government killed his family and people had an outcry at the government. It would be a poor move by the Mexican government to do this. I think the sad thing though, is that I don't have much faith that my government would care about the American citizens over Mexico, considering how they stand on border control.

   

Given the information coming from the Defence Review, I would suggest the P-7 doesn't even show up on the radar and joint operations ship is probably high on the list of changes. By the way, two ships (like HMS Ocean) give the CF heavy sea-lift capability - one gives us the ability to engage in rapid force projection. The heavy airlift problem will also likely be addressed but Hillier has uttered words like, "either buy, lease, rent or have available through treaty. Whatever works."

   

Sounds like beg, borrow or steal to me. Either way it does not sound like a long term plan that will meet the requirements of the 2nd largest nation in the world. Also a heavy sea-lift capability is something we simply must have with a nation with 3 wet boarders but air lift is faster. What happens when another tsunami hits in Asia? Sea lift will be there far too late. How about another Rwanda conflict like Dafur and we are needed now with the heavy equipment and the ports are not exactly receptive when it is land locked? Just to name a few examples. Still, I heartily agree with a sea lift option, it just makes sense and it is economical to boot but we need airlift now, sea lift will have to wait.

   

I agree with Scape 100% in the fact that we need both sealift AND airlift (C-17/C-130J combination) to accomplish our missions and move our forces. To add to Scape's comment, what happens if there is a problem in a central Asian country, Kazakhstan for example, and the UN has made a mandate to intervene...?

   

A C-17 is a wet dream, but it ain't gonna happen.

Problem in a central Asian country... UN intervention... hmmm. That presumes that we are going to continue to have no independent foreign policy and allow the UN to make it for us.

I know! If the UN wants us there, THEY get us the transport.

As for heavy sea lift via an Ocean class RVA, if you read the specs on HMS Ocean you'll see it doesn't need a secure port or any port at all, for that matter.

   

Well, for starters, the reason I picked a central asian country wasn't for the political or UN reasons but I'm trying to state that we cannot rely soley on sealift because not all places in the world are accessable by sea (check the map and look for Kazahkstan). Second, WE are the ones who need to be in charge of our military. That includes transportation to and from the battlefield.

I know that the C-17 thing is kind of a fantasy idea. There was a lengthly discussion about stat lift somewhere near the beginning of the 'State of the Canadian Forces' thread. I think that we really need to invest in strat lift (both air and sea) because without it we can't get our army to area of conflict.

Thanks

   

I don't need to check a map. I know perfectly well where Khazakstan is. In fact, I know I've been closer to the place than you.


Just an aside, whenever you suggest Canada's military will go somewhere there are always political and international considerations... big ones. Additionally, Canada is a member of several robust alliances. We are one of the weakest members, if not the absolute weakest member of most of them. If we strengthen our position within those alliances it is a relatively easy matter to trade temporary heavy lift for the maintenance of a move-ready combat brigade. We cannot, however, trade command and control and even a C-17 with maple leafs on it isn't a command and control platform.

   

That's true but then supply and resupply then become reasonable concerns. Command and control that the assault carrier can bring is not as important as being able to get the heavy equipment to our troops deployed now in Afghanistan for example. I know we can ask others for a lift but we really should be doing this ourselves irregardless if this is a UN, NATO or god know what other sort of commitment that our government has signed us up for the brownie point but never had the intent to actually back up with troops and money. Sorry, my cynical side toward the liberals is showing.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6 ... 9  Next