How Canadians view our military

[M.Dancer]

The procurements often have nothing to do with the actual budget. They are often public works items. Military core funding has nearly doubled. Some procurements come out of there, but others are separate. As for the Sea King, well, the last crash was in 2003.

And I remember it was 1986 that they were talking about the need to get a replacement ....signing the deal to get the EH 101 Merlin...which the Liberals killed.

I also remember the Liberals acknowledging that the aging Leopards needed replacing...at the time they were considering getting out of MBTs all together...going with a thin skinned wheeled vehicle with an under sized cannon...think about that for a second..that woould be like an 17th century nation saying there was no need for Hussars...

[Smallc]

going with a thin skinned wheeled vehicle with an under sized cannon

It was the same size cannon as the Leopard C2, smaller than the Leopard 2 though.

[DogOnPorch]

Some good shots of the C2 and its ammo being loaded in Afghanistan.

[waldo]

Historically it has always taken the price of soldiers lives to get the government and people of Canada to release the purse strings...what scares me is it may take hundrds more to get our military into shape...what we should be asking is why ?

shape... of course... is relative - is subjective.

what's the reference used, the reference needed... to determine that relative, subjective - "shape"?

what's the military role... your military role... for Canada to play, both domestically and internationally?

we read suggestions from U.S. military leaders/analysts that anywhere from another 60,000 to 100,000 U.S. troops will/may be required in Afghanistan - long term - to realize what proponents of that war term, "success". In that relative sense, with Canada having apparent difficulty, today, putting together an effective troop deployment of... what... 2500 (or so) troops, what ambitions do you foster with your "getting in shape" expression? Do you hearken for the days of sending double that troop deployment number?... triple sized?... perhaps a 10,000 troop deployment capability into the world's next shithole? What's your pie-in-the sky monetary projection to be able to actually handle internal domestic requirements coupled with presumptions of grandeur incursions into foreign lands? How much... to get in shape... and more significantly... to maintain that shape, renewed - year in, year out..... for a country of 33 million? How much, for "shape"?

A better question would be, what is your expectation? Whatever it is, he is stuck with trying to make it work with what you give him.

and your “stuck with” reference presumes to a mismatch in funding vs. requirement… probably because, again, “shape” lacks definition/boundaries. Whether it’s a better question or not, the best questions still stand… in asking an active duty soldier, one who participates freely/vociferously within MLW in promoting the Canadian Armed Forces. And in this specific regard, an active duty soldier who ponders on the government/peoples willingness to allot additional military funding in relation to the number of soldiers killed...... as before, what should be Canada’s domestic and international military roles… and how much to fund these defined roles “shape” requirements, both initial/replacement and ongoing maintenance costs?

of course, a few Conservative hawks have shown up to the thread and, not surprisingly, one in particular struts about talking of the need to pull our "weight”… although he doesn’t actually define what “weight” is, but is quite prepared to speak to broad-based funding it based upon a percentage of Canada’s GDP.

and yes... in the absence of any provided detailed role definitions for Canada's military, domestic and international, I will certainly take the liberty in correlating getting in "shape" to reduced "weight".

[DogOnPorch]

Here's your sling-shots, guys. The Taliban are that-a-way.

[Machjo]

What I think we need is an global military force comprising no more than 100,000 well trained and equipped men.

Considering how complex our world has become, a national military force alone, without the backing of a global force, fully multilingual and thus more capable of engaging in hearts and minds campaings (the failure of which was a major source of agony in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan) is fast becoming a relic of the bygone era.

[Smallc]

Here's your sling-shots, guys. The Taliban are that-a-way.

They don't have sling shots though. They always need more, that's true, but people act as if they have nothing now.

[Guest TrueMetis]

What I think we need is an global military force comprising no more than 100,000 well trained and equipped men.

Considering how complex our world has become, a national military force alone, without the backing of a global force, fully multilingual and thus more capable of engaging in hearts and minds campaings (the failure of which was a major source of agony in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan) is fast becoming a relic of the bygone era.

Who's in charge of this force? If it's UN controled then it's really controled by The US, Russia, The UK, France and China. If that's the case then nothing is ever gonna get done with it.

[DogOnPorch]

They don't have sling shots though. They always need more, that's true, but people act as if they have nothing now.

I didn't say they had nothing, of course. More is part of the formula...agreed. We already had a thread on all the toys Canada should have if it had the will to possess. These would indeed come in handy.

[Smallc]

We do have a considerable amount of mine clearing equipment, though it doesn't seem to be enough. We have the Husky, the Buffalo, and the Cougar. Not sure about the other one.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Smallc

[DogOnPorch]

What I think we need is an global military force comprising no more than 100,000 well trained and equipped men.

Considering how complex our world has become, a national military force alone, without the backing of a global force, fully multilingual and thus more capable of engaging in hearts and minds campaings (the failure of which was a major source of agony in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan) is fast becoming a relic of the bygone era.

One hundred thousand is dick-diddly. You'd need more. For every soldier in the field, there are 10 in support...give or take.

[DogOnPorch]

We do have a considerable amount of mine clearing equipment, though it doesn't seem to be enough. We have the Husky, the Buffalo, and the Cougar. Not sure about the other one.

That Yankee one is a special unit with some vehicles designed to absorb quite the blast. Check it out...I was amazed to find out how long it took to clear a road.

[Smallc]

I know that we've significantly upgraded since 2005. The RG - 31 (75 of them) was purchased in 2006, the Cougar (40) in 2007, the Buffalo (19) in 2007, and the Husky (5) in 2007. We also use the Joint Service Flail Unit (5) that we already had. Things are certainly looking up.

[DogOnPorch]

I know that we've significantly upgraded since 2005. The RG - 31 (75 of them) was purchased in 2006, the Cougar (40) in 2007, the Buffalo (19) in 2007, and the Husky (5) in 2007. We also use the Joint Service Flail Unit (5) that we already had. Things are certainly looking up.

Mines seem to be enemy numero 1...so it definitely makes practical sense. Some mines are so big it doesn't matter how much armor you have, mind you.

Then there's the RKG-3 which is very deadly in the urban environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RKG-3_anti-tank_grenade

Edited September 23, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[Smallc]

Yes, that's the thing. No matter how much armour we put out, they always seem to find a way around it.

[DogOnPorch]

Yes, that's the thing. No matter how much armour we put out, they always seem to find a way around it.

Until eventualy the knight once a terrible worm in an iron cocoon, no longer ventured onto the battlefield...replaced by the arquebusier. It's a well worn cycle.

[Moonbox]

Yes, that's the thing. No matter how much armour we put out, they always seem to find a way around it.

They can build APC's and vehicles to withstand AV mines. There is always, of course, going to be someone who develops a weapon to beat those, but the Taliban aren't going to be the ones using them.

I'm reminded of reading about an M1 tank that the Americans got stuck in a mudhole in Iraq back in Desert Storm. The armour on it was so advanced and thick that a squad of American tanks themselves couldn't even destroy it.

[M.Dancer]

Yes, that's the thing. No matter how much armour we put out, they always seem to find a way around it.

So making it harder for the enemy is a lost cause? No of course not. It is not only a one sum equation, design also plays a role and the harder *and more expensive* it is to disable, ghe fewer will be disabled. Being satisitfied with your tactics and weapons is not an option that leads to victory.

[Smallc]

They can build APC's and vehicles to withstand AV mines.

Well we haven't found one yet. The's pretty much nothing better than the vehicles that we now have deployed, and still, a Husky was damaged by a mine and the soldiers were injured. They weren't killed mind you.

[Smallc]

So making it harder for the enemy is a lost cause?

I didn't say that we shouldn't try. I said that it's difficult to keep ahead of them. They always seem to find a way around the new armour.

[Argus]

But I have to ask, how much is enough? $30B? $40B? $50B?

Like health care, I don't care what it costs so long as it is capable, efficient in its spending, planning and activities, and gets the job done properly.

We can afford more. We afforded more in the not very distant past. I don't have a problem with higher taxes if needed - for health care or the military - so long as it is spent wisely.

That is often not the case in either area now, of course.

[Argus]

The procurements often have nothing to do with the actual budget. They are often public works items. Military core funding has nearly doubled. Some procurements come out of there, but others are separate. As for the Sea King, well, the last crash was in 2003.

I don't think so. Military core funding has doubled? Says who? You have a cite for that? What is it being spent on? We don't have a significantly larger military. It's still half the size it was twenty years or so ago. So just what did they spend this 100% increase on if not equipment to replace the gear which rusted away?

[Argus]

I know that we've significantly upgraded since 2005. The RG - 31 (75 of them) was purchased in 2006, the Cougar (40) in 2007, the Buffalo (19) in 2007, and the Husky (5) in 2007. We also use the Joint Service Flail Unit (5) that we already had. Things are certainly looking up.

You don't realize how trivial those numbers are? We bought 40 Cougars? Oh good. Shouldn't we have bought like 400 though? We bought 5 Husky's? Wow. That's a lot.

Meanwhile...

US to expand its supply of mine resitant vehicles

Edited September 23, 2009 by Argus

[Moonbox]

Well we haven't found one yet. The's pretty much nothing better than the vehicles that we now have deployed, and still, a Husky was damaged by a mine and the soldiers were injured. They weren't killed mind you.

Gates decided to ramp up MRAP orders after the Marines reported in 2004 that no troops had died in more than 300 IED attacks on Cougars

Wikipedia link haha

The MRAP's the US are using in Iraq have a 99% reduced casualty rate. As of June 2008 they'd only had 8 fatalities in these vehicles.

Our fatalities on the road are largely due to the wrong equipment for the job at hand.

There are certainly mines out there that can beat these vehicles, but the militias we're fighting against aren't really using them and probably have a hard time finding them.

[Wilber]

and your “stuck with” reference presumes to a mismatch in funding vs. requirement… probably because, again, “shape” lacks definition/boundaries. Whether it’s a better question or not, the best questions still stand… in asking an active duty soldier, one who participates freely/vociferously within MLW in promoting the Canadian Armed Forces. And in this specific regard, an active duty soldier who ponders on the government/peoples willingness to allot additional military funding in relation to the number of soldiers killed...... as before, what should be Canada’s domestic and international military roles… and how much to fund these defined roles “shape” requirements, both initial/replacement and ongoing maintenance costs?

of course, a few Conservative hawks have shown up to the thread and, not surprisingly, one in particular struts about talking of the need to pull our "weight”… although he doesn’t actually define what “weight” is, but is quite prepared to speak to broad-based funding it based upon a percentage of Canada’s GDP.

and yes... in the absence of any provided detailed role definitions for Canada's military, domestic and international, I will certainly take the liberty in correlating getting in "shape" to reduced "weight".

Well the fact is, he is "stuck" with what we give him and what we ask him to do. Why shouldn't he speak up about it. Unlike the rest of us who spout off on this forum, for him it is about a lot more than money.

If we are unable to protect our borders on our own, we need allies. If we expect their support, we need the ability to reciprocate, which means having the ability to do something which is of value to them. That would be "weight". "Weight" would also be showing the world that we are capable of backing up our word to both our allies and those who would threaten our way of life. Regardless of what one may feel about the Afghan mission itself, I don't think it is unreasonable that a wealthy country of 33 million which depends on stability in the world for its prosperity, should be able to maintain and support a well equipped force of 3000 in the field for extended periods of time.

You don't answer the question. What do you think Canada's role should be? What are your boundaries?