The Canadian Military

[Argus]

The Liberals are promising another 8,000, the Tories another 30,000. The Tories are promising to increase the budget by about 1.2 billion per year. I believe this is 1.2bill on top of 1.2 bill on top of 1.2 bill, correct? They've also promised to finally buy those damn helicopters, as have the Liberals (but they've been promising that for ten years).

What else does the military need on top of that?

I think we need to close unneeded bases. I think we need a big reshuffle at DND to eliminate the massive bureacracy, both civilian and military, and to slim down the topheavy officer corps.

We have a dozen coastal defence vessels, but I believe they're given over to the reserves and are rarely, if ever in the water for lack of funds. I'd like to see a dozen or more added to this and all or most of them in the water, frankly.

The air force has about a hundred F-18s, but the majority are in mothballs for lack of funding. These need to be dramatically upgraded. Even as far back as Kosovo we heard they couldn't properly communicate and didn't have the equipment to drop bombs. The air force needs new transport aircraft as our Hercules are falilng apart and we have no large jet transports.

The Army has 3 undermanned regiments who are outnumbered by DND's human resource employees. It has about a hundred tanks which are thirty years old and of little use - currently being upgraded. Most of its armored personnel carriers are 30-40 years old. Many of their armored combat vehicles are 25 years old.

Clearly they need upgraded, modern equipment, and more of it. Fortunately, army equipment isn't nearly as expensive as Air Force or Navy equipment. And efficiences and cutting the massive bureacracy should give us thousands more infantry on its own.

By comparison, I found this partial list of current purchasing efforts for Australia - 2/3 our size.

The military's new hardware will include two 20,000-tonne ships each able to transport 1000 troops and combat equipment, as well as up to six helicopters on deck, to “trouble spots” near and far, and a smaller “sealift” ship. They will replace the navy's current troop-transport ships, the 3300-tonne HMAS Tobruk and the 7000-tonne HMAS Kanimbla and HMAS Manoora.

Three powerful new “air warfare destroyers”, equipped with US Aegis missile systems, will also be purchased for a total cost of up to $12 billion. They will be more than adequate for protecting the new “helicopter carriers” during long-distance deployments of troops. According to the review document, the air war destroyers can “track large numbers of aircraft at extended range and ... can simultaneously destroy multiple aircraft at ranges in excess of 150 kilometres”.

Four of the navy's existing FFG-class frigates will also be equipped with the latest surface-to-air missile systems.

The army will receive up to 100 new tanks, with ADF chief General Peter Cosgrove pushing for the heavier and more expensive US M1 Abrams model (which would cost more than $800 million), used in the Iraq invasion, rather than the lighter and cheaper German Leopard or British Challenger.

The government also announced that the retirement of the 1960s-era F-111 fighter-bomber fleet would be delayed by four years, to 2010, until their “long-range strike” role — the capability to bomb any major city or installation in Asia and the Pacific Ocean from Australia — is taken over by the air force's upgraded F/A-18 Hornets — at the cost of $1 billion.

New early warning aircraft and air-to-air refueling aircraft (costing $2 billion), as well as new satellite- and laser-guided bombs, will boost the 75 Hornets' capacity for long-distance attack. In 2012, around 100 new US F-35 Joint Strike Force fighters will begin to come into service. The F-35s will cost $12-15 billion.

[maplesyrup]

Let's take a look at our priorities for the military.

What is the remuneration for a Canadian military person?

Do our soldiers need a raise in pay?

This is the number one issue Canadians need to explore concerning the military.

[idealisttotheend]

Australia has a lot less territiory to defend than Canada, and so should require less for what the Yanks call "home defence". That northern patrol the CA just made cost a whole lot of money and it wasn't even very comprehensive (I think the lost every single snwbobile they left with). Plus, I could be wrong, but it seems to me Canada is oversees a lot more often than Australia. I know the Aussies have a token force in Iraq (more for political reasons than practical reasons like most counteis) but they don't have 2000 troops in Afganistan, or troops in Haiti and are almost never seen on peacekeeping missions. It is the oversees missions that are expensive.

I completely agree though that there are too many generals (who are actually more like politicians) and too many civilian DND employees. Very inefficient and can actually hurt more than they help in ways beyond only their cost.

[Redragon]

As for the carriers, Canada cannot in the near future handle even one carrier. Each carrier would require a battlegroup of at least 2-3 escort ships and a replenishing ship. This means each deployment of a carrier would consume 25% of naval resources. Now think about all the stuff that you have to buy for the carrier, he wants to fill it with helicopters, now we're going to have to buy some new combat helicopters. All this plus 20 000 new troops, new equipment for air force and army, all for 1.6 billion in extra funding a year? Thats not nearly enough money. Even if Harper is talking about 1.6 billion in operation costs and not capital, that money still won't be enough to pay for maintenance, payroll, etc.

[Argus]

Australia has a lot less territiory to defend than Canada, and so should require less for what the Yanks call "home defence". 

But they have more.

  Plus, I could be wrong, but it seems to me Canada is oversees a lot more often than Australia.  I know the Aussies have a token force in Iraq (more for political reasons than practical reasons like most counteis) but they don't have 2000 troops in Afganistan, or troops in Haiti and are almost never seen on peacekeeping missions.  It is the oversees missions that are expensive.

Australia has just over 2,000 people in Iraq. They sent over 5,000 troops to stabilize East Timor (Indonesia) after the slaughter which was taking place there, and I believe they still have some troops there. They also sent something like 1,500 troops to the Solomons recently to end widespread looting and fighting. They've been a hell of a lot more active than we have of late.

[falling leaf]

They do have the SRR (sub , ready reserve)People trained to respond if needed. trained ready to go back into service .who have served and retired. but under 65 years of age.

Yes the Canadian Arm forces are a mess.

They housing is is not good shape either.

[Redragon]

The reason for the Australian armed forces being what they are is because of their geographical position. They're really not that far from the danger spots of the world, at least, not as far and safe as we are.

[Stoker]

What else does the military need on top of that?

I think we need to close unneeded bases. I think we need a big reshuffle at DND to eliminate the massive bureacracy, both civilian and military, and to slim down the topheavy officer corps.

I agree with you about paring down the bureacracy, but other then perhaps CFB Goose Bay, what bases would you close?

We have a dozen coastal defence vessels, but I believe they're given over to the reserves and are rarely, if ever in the water for lack of funds. I'd like to see a dozen or more added to this and all or most of them in the water, frankly.

I'd actually like to see the Coast Guard given more modern, lightly armed patrol vessels......then keep the Kingstons for Reserve Traning and mine countermeasures

The air force has about a hundred F-18s, but the majority are in mothballs for lack of funding. These need to be dramatically upgraded. Even as far back as Kosovo we heard they couldn't properly communicate and didn't have the equipment to drop bombs. The air force needs new transport aircraft as our Hercules are falilng apart and we have no large jet transports.

IIRC, 80 CF-18s are being upgraded, but I think that the other 40ish Hornets in storage should be upgraded as well. I couldn't agree more with you about the Airlift though.

The Army has 3 undermanned regiments who are outnumbered by DND's human resource employees. It has about a hundred tanks which are thirty years old and of little use - currently being upgraded. Most of its armored personnel carriers are 30-40 years old. Many of their armored combat vehicles are 25 years old.

The three Brigades should be fully manned, then perhaps look at raising a fourth.

I agree that the Leos and M113 need to be replaced, as does a large percentage of the Armies trucks.

The military's new hardware will include two 20,000-tonne ships each able to transport 1000 troops and combat equipment, as well as up to six helicopters on deck, to “trouble spots” near and far, and a smaller “sealift” ship. They will replace the navy's current troop-transport ships, the 3300-tonne HMAS Tobruk and the 7000-tonne HMAS Kanimbla and HMAS Manoora.

The 20k ships, sound exactly like what the Tories want to get.

Three powerful new “air warfare destroyers”, equipped with US Aegis missile systems, will also be purchased for a total cost of up to $12 billion. They will be more than adequate for protecting the new “helicopter carriers” during long-distance deployments of troops. According to the review document, the air war destroyers can “track large numbers of aircraft at extended range and ... can simultaneously destroy multiple aircraft at ranges in excess of 150 kilometres”.

Four of the navy's existing FFG-class frigates will also be equipped with the latest surface-to-air missile systems.

That figure of 12 billion is incorrect.......it's closer to about 5 billion......they want a scaled down Burke class destroyer, and they cost about 1.5 Billion per....as far as the FFG plans go, I think that plan has been scraped.

The army will receive up to 100 new tanks, with ADF chief General Peter Cosgrove pushing for the heavier and more expensive US M1 Abrams model (which would cost more than $800 million), used in the Iraq invasion, rather than the lighter and cheaper German Leopard or British Challenger.

They just signed a contract to buy about 60 Abrams for slightly less then what we will pay for the same amout as we will pay for the MGS

New early warning aircraft and air-to-air refueling aircraft (costing $2 billion), as well as new satellite- and laser-guided bombs, will boost the 75 Hornets' capacity for long-distance attack. In 2012, around 100 new US F-35 Joint Strike Force fighters will begin to come into service. The F-35s will cost $12-15 billion.

Like Australia, we have also commited a sum of money to the JSF program (In hopes of getting defence contracts) so there is a glimmer of hope that the current government is looking that way.

As for the carriers, Canada cannot in the near future handle even one carrier. Each carrier would require a battlegroup of at least 2-3 escort ships and a replenishing ship. This means each deployment of a carrier would consume 25% of naval resources. Now think about all the stuff that you have to buy for the carrier, he wants to fill it with helicopters, now we're going to have to buy some new combat helicopters. All this plus 20 000 new troops, new equipment for air force and army, all for 1.6 billion in extra funding a year? Thats not nearly enough money. Even if Harper is talking about 1.6 billion in operation costs and not capital, that money still won't be enough to pay for maintenance, payroll, etc.

Two to three escorts and an AOR? Why that already sounds like a Canadian Task Force.......we already deploy groups that size together.....been doing that for a while

As I've said in another thread, if the Armed Forces of countries like Spain, Australia and the Netherlands are already doing more with the same level of funding as us, there is not one reason that we can't do more with the Tories plan to increase defence spending by close to 10 billion dollars.

[Redragon]

So each deployment of the aircraft carrier would require a quarter of our ships, a quarter of our manpower. What I was saying is, each deployment of a carrier would gobble up a huge number of resources that could be used elsewhere. Aside from Operation Apollo, most naval deployments consisted of only one or two ships at a time. That was sustainable, what happened in Operation Apollo isn't. The navy is exhausted. With the purchase of carriers, it is in my opinion that the navy would require to purchase additional frigates, at least 2-3. All this will take a lot of money, certainly not 1.6 billion extra a year.

[Argus]

As for the carriers, Canada cannot in the near future handle even one carrier. Each carrier would require a battlegroup of at least 2-3 escort ships and a replenishing ship. This means each deployment of a carrier would consume 25% of naval resources. Now think about all the stuff that you have to buy for the carrier, he wants to fill it with helicopters, now we're going to have to buy some new combat helicopters. All this plus 20 000 new troops, new equipment for air force and army, all for 1.6 billion in extra funding a year? Thats not nearly enough money. Even if Harper is talking about 1.6 billion in operation costs and not capital, that money still won't be enough to pay for maintenance, payroll, etc.

I believe the 1.2 billion is incrimental "per year", ie, raised 1.2 in the first, raised 2.4 in the second, raised 3.6 by the third, from its present state.

I'm not sure you need a lot of escorts for ships which are basically transport vessels, not fighting vessels. Do we presently use multiple warships to escort supply ships? Are our supply ships even armed at all now? Even with basic anti air weapons? If not why should we start treating them like the centrepieces of US aircraft carrier battle groups just because the supply ships will now carry a half dozen or so armed helicopters? This isn't the cold war. We're not worried about submarines sinking the thing. Attach some anti air to them and they'd already be miles better off than the ones we have now.

[Stoker]

So each deployment of the aircraft carrier would require a quarter of our ships, a quarter of our manpower. What I was saying is, each deployment of a carrier would gobble up a huge number of resources that could be used elsewhere. Aside from Operation Apollo, most naval deployments consisted of only one or two ships at a time. That was sustainable, what happened in Operation Apollo isn't. The navy is exhausted. With the purchase of carriers, it is in my opinion that the navy would require to purchase additional frigates, at least 2-3. All this will take a lot of money, certainly not 1.6 billion extra a year.

No, we do deploy Task groups of usually a couple CPF, a 280 and a AOR, on top of vanguard and/or single deployments with NATO and USN carrier battlegroups. Opperation Apollo was an extreme case, and not only our Navy was/is tired from the war on terror.

Think of it this way, the standard for most navies is a three to one ratio, in that to keep one ship deployed, you need three ships at home for Refit/Training/Attrition.

We have:

12 CPF

3* Destroyers (Huron is the 4th)

2 AOR

Now it is planned that the two AORs will be replaced by three ships, and it's foggy if CADRE will go ahead to replace the 4 DDGs.

Now Harper plans to replace the DDGs, and purchase at least two LHDs, now if you factor in the three planned AORs and the current CPFs, that gives us:

12 CPFs

4 DDG

3 AORs

2 LHDs

with a deployable task group of about:

2-3 CPFs

1 DDG

1 AOR

1 LHD

That still allows a ship for NATO, and allows us a surge capacity if we need it.

[takeanumber]

Do our soldiers need a raise in pay?

Yes.

Exempt them from federal tax.

See if the provinces would do the same.

That would be a great, terrific way to boost their pay right away.

[Argus]

Do our soldiers need a raise in pay?

Yes.

Exempt them from federal tax.

See if the provinces would do the same.

That would be a great, terrific way to boost their pay right away.

Military pay is, if anything, overly generous.

The standard rank for enlisted men is corporal, and the pay rate for a corporal is between $3700-$4100 per month. That's pretty darn good for someone with a high school diploma. Specialists get paid more, of course. An S2 Corporal gets up to $4750 per month. A lieutenant in the top pay grade can get over $6,000 per month. Specialist bonuses go on top of that.

For comparison purposes. The standard rank in the US army is private first class (marines equivilant is lance corporal). Both are E-3 on the military pay charts. Their top monthly pay rate is US $1335 (C$1800). A Lieutenant is an O-2, and top pay rate is US$3071 (C$4148)

So our enlisted ranks aren't doing too badly by any realistic measure. Now the US troops also get a substantial housing allowance, but it's not enough to bring them even with the pay our troops receive.

And remember, a corporal, the standard, high school diploma guy with no special skills can bring in as much as a lot of university graduates are earning in civilian life.

[Stoker]

IIRC, US forces are not taxed if they live in base housing and if they buy products from base stores (like our CANEX) their items are tax free..

WRT to pay, 4k might seem like a fair amount to you, but you go find another person that makes that figure that is not in the forces, and ask them how many months of the year are they away from their families....and to boot, are most likely spending that time in a "very stressful" enviroment.

Also, most families can have both spouses working, but in the case of the forces, most likely due to frequent postings and the lack of jobs in the towns were most of our bases are located, it's very difficult for the other spouse to have a decent job........

So the average Canadian earns about 39000 a year, so combined, thats about 80K per household for a two adult family. Now a member in the Forces making 45000 a year, in most cases, their income is not supplemented as much by the other spouse (if any)........So military families put up with more stress for less money

Yeah they really deserve that.

[Argus]

WRT to pay, 4k might seem like a fair amount to you, but you go find another person that makes that figure that is not in the forces, and ask them how many months of the year are they away from their families....and to boot, are most likely spending that time in a "very stressful" enviroment.

I've got a better idea. How about I ask some of the large assed corporals I see waddling around downtown Ottawa? The sad truth is that by far the great majority of the people in the CAF never get involved in UN or NATO peacekeeping operations of any sort. In fact, I know some very long serving members who not only have never gone outside a major Canadian city they've said openly that if the military ever tried to transfer them into a field outfit they'd quit and go work at something else. They enjoy the uniform and the perks and pay, but they like being administrators, clerks, technicians, supply people, etc. They have no intention of being shipped off to someplace like Iraq or Bosnia.

So the average Canadian earns about 39000 a year, so combined, thats about 80K per household for a two adult family.

And are all families two parent families where both work? And do all of them earn the average? And do no military spouses work?

Yes, there can be more stress on military families, at least, those in one of the infantry regiments or on one of our warships that makes it out of port. But IMHO their pay rate is more than sufficient.

[Stoker]

I've got a better idea. How about I ask some of the large assed corporals I see waddling around downtown Ottawa? The sad truth is that by far the great majority of the people in the CAF never get involved in UN or NATO peacekeeping operations of any sort. In fact, I know some very long serving members who not only have never gone outside a major Canadian city they've said openly that if the military ever tried to transfer them into a field outfit they'd quit and go work at something else. They enjoy the uniform and the perks and pay, but they like being administrators, clerks, technicians, supply people, etc. They have no intention of being shipped off to someplace like Iraq or Bosnia.

So you would punish the ones that do go over sea, because of the ones in the puzzle palace? Isn't that backwards logic?

And are all families two parent families where both work? And do all of them earn the average? And do no military spouses work?

As I said, because of frequent moving and the locations of most of our current bases, the quality of jobs for military spouses is not as great.......hence I agree that military families should be compensated for it.

Yes, there can be more stress on military families, at least, those in one of the infantry regiments or on one of our warships that makes it out of port. But IMHO their pay rate is more than sufficient.

Like the old saying goes, never judge a person until you walked a mile in his shoes and in this case boots...

[Argus]

So you would punish the ones that do go over sea, because of the ones in the puzzle palace? Isn't that backwards logic?

Uhm, where have I suggested punishing anyone? I'm merely pointing out their pay rates are more than adequate. Yes, there is some familiy stress when relatives go away. But that affects a minority of military families. And that stress would be better aleviated by having a larger selection of people to send to such duties so we don't send the same ones again and again. Once someone has served overseas for one tour they should be guaranteed to stay home for at least a few years before the next. Unfortunately, while our government loves to offer them up, it refuses to hire enough of them to make rotation meaningful and realistic.

If people are joining the mlitary to get rich they should find something else to do. However, with better equipment, better leadership, and a proper rotation between tours most of the stress will fade.

[Stoker]

I agree with you on getting "better equipment, better leadership, and a proper rotation between tours", but the most important thing in any nations Armed Forces, is the people.

There is no point buying "all the goodies" if we can't keep people in the Service.....

I noticed how you said the "pay rate is more than sufficient", well you tell me why the Armed Forces is having a hell of a time keeping/recruting skilled trades people?

[Argus]

I agree with you on getting "better equipment, better leadership, and a proper rotation between tours", but the most important thing in any nations Armed Forces, is the people.

There is no point buying "all the goodies" if we can't keep people in the Service.....

I noticed how you said the "pay rate is more than sufficient", well you tell me why the Armed Forces is having a hell of a time keeping/recruting skilled trades people?

Pride is a big problem. Pride is what keeps people in the military, and what is there to be proud of when your military has a reputation for third or fourth rate, antiquated equipment, indiscipline in the ranks, bureacratic ass kissing officers, and a mission which is ignored or ridiculed by those in power. Why enter or stay in the military when you can't take pride in the uniform and what it represents?

[Stoker]

Yes, pride is important.......but as I've said, "pride" can't always compete with the private sector.

Say you were a plumber or a heavy duty mechanic in the forces, are you going to:

A. stay in the forces after three years, make less money and go leave your familiy for extended periods of time.

-OR-

B. Leave the forces after three years, make more money in the private sector, and stay home with the "wife and kids".

Now lets have an honest answer?

[Hugo]

That doesn't address the issue of pride and dedication. I know a major in the USAF, a married man with kids, who flies an F-16 and was decorated in Kosovo. He could be earning four times his current salary as a commercial pilot, but he won't leave the service.

To some people, serving your country is more important than money.

[Stoker]

That doesn't address the issue of pride and dedication. I know a major in the USAF, a married man with kids, who flies an F-16 and was decorated in Kosovo. He could be earning four times his current salary as a commercial pilot, but he won't leave the service.

To some people, serving your country is more important than money.

There is a difference between the payscale for an officer and an enlisted man.......

Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm all for bringing back "pride" to our Armed Forces, and purchasing all sorts of "uber goodies", but that still does not change the fact that we should be looking at the problems with retention.

I'm not saying that this should be an either or issue, both need to be addressed.......I'm all for buying LHDs, new Destroyers, Tanks, Heavy Airlift and increasing the manpower within the forces, but well we are doing that, we should be also putting money aside for new PMQs, some sort of further tax break for serving members or a wage increaes that will mirror the pay of a job in the private sector, perhaps full/part time civilian employment on base for spouses in remote locations......etc etc

No point buying all the toys if we won't have anybody to run them.