Liberals party defence review

Wilber · July 6, 2016

No, my response was to smallc's suggestion of additional aircraft to protect Winnipeg............NORAD did away with specific sector defense over central North America decades ago, moving to the division of North America into five regions, East and West United States and Canada and Alaska.

The defense of our Arctic is very much so reenacting the Cold War (NORAD never stopped, but expanded to include missile defense and now maritime approaches)..........basing permanent fighters within the Arctic circle is unrealistic, the Americans base them as far north as Fairbanks.....the terminus of the Alaskan railroad........for a reason: Logistics and money....

Not to mention, basing interceptors so close to Russian airspace ( further North then our search radars, unless you want to move those too) would allow the Russians to launch standoff missiles at our airbases from within their own territory....forget air launched, they could pop off a couple battlefield IRBMs like a warmed over Scud or Frog, with only a few minutes reaction time, and that would be all she wrote.....the same reason the RAF didn't base their fighters along the Channel coast, or NATO (and the Warsaw Pact) didn't base theirs along the East-West German border.

You keep a minimum of forces there permanently but have facilities to support a lot more if things get tense. Troops in company or even platoon strength, rotate a flight of fighters in and out with a tanker and other support equipment plus an AA missile battery and radars to protect them.

You do it for the same reason the Brits built RAF Mt. Pleasant in the Falklands. To send the message that Canada is serious about protecting its arctic sovereignty and anyone who messes with it will meet resistance. Right now we are sending the message to Putin and anyone else who is interested that they can come and take the whole damn archipelago because we won't lift a finger to stop them. They won't have to launch or risk anything, just walk in and take it.

You guys talk like the Russians can magically project all their military might across the Arctic Ocean when they couldn't do anything remotely close. No one could do that, not even the Americans. This isn't the same as trying to stop massed tank armies on the North German Plain.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Wilber

Smallc · July 6, 2016

It's not really fair to say we do nothing. We have a ship under construction (the first of at least five) to show our flag. It even has a light armament. We also have several stations and forward operating bases. I just think we should do more with those FOBs.

Wilber · July 6, 2016

It's not really fair to say we do nothing. We have a ship under construction (the first of at least five) to show our flag. It even has a light armament. We also have several stations and forward operating bases. I just think we should do more with those FOBs.

We can show the flag as they sail by.

Army Guy · July 6, 2016

And that's why I call for organizations to be developed that are better equipped for national emergencies. You wouldn't see the army at an Oka or FLQ situation anymore.

Oh do tell, what organizations would they be , and how would they be equipped....and I guess your ceding the point of the ICE storm and Winnipeg floods or could they have been handled be another organization as well, one that has the equipment, manpower and funding to pull off these types of missions.....Oh wait we do have an organization it is called the military....now you want to down size the military and create another similar organization....Take a minute gather your thoughts, your all over the map.....

?Impact · July 6, 2016

The graph is split into two groups Both for 2011, the first graph is what we spent in percentage to our GDP numbers. the second Graph shows over all military expenditures in which we rank 127 .

The link you posted has a table, is that what you mean by 'graph'? The left side is GDP, and the right side is Military Spending. If you note, the right side has the 'rank' column with the entry for Canada listed at 127, but the right side is sorted by absolute spending ($US assumed) and Canada is the 20'th entry down on that side.

Army Guy · July 6, 2016

Please do not include the Baltic states with the Crimea. I fully understand and agree with the Russian involvement in the Crimea. That part of the Ukraine had voted about 90% for the pro-Russian candidate for president. He won but those in Kiev rebelled and threw him out, not voted him out but threw him out. How is that for democracy?

They did not want what those folks in the Crimea wanted. The folks in Crimea appealed to the Kremlin with whom they had closer financial, philosophical and language ties. The rest is history. How many folks in the Crimea are crying for "liberation" from Russia?

The Baltic States are a completely different package. The majority of the folks there do not want assimilation with Russia and I believe that Putin has no interest in them - except if the West decides to base nuclear missiles there. Then, there might be problems.

Those 1,000 Canadian soldiers we send to the Baltic states will have a good time taking advantage of the beaches and good will of the people there. NATO will be happy rattling swords that are not needed but only a political band aid to cover their (our) bungling in Europe.

Putin is only the "BOGGY MAN" and threat that the Americans want us to believe.

The results of the next NATO summit will be interesting.

you can believe what ever you want Big guy, but the issues in the Ukraine do not start and stop with the Crimea.

As for Canadian soldiers in Poland , look at DND web sites they have plenty of videos and photos, can't say I seen any beach shots though....

Smallc · July 6, 2016

We can show the flag as they sail by.

It's not like they're going to have anything armed to the point of making them irrelevant - at least, not in the arctic.

Smallc · July 6, 2016

Oh do tell, what organizations would they be , and how would they be equipped....and I guess your ceding the point of the ICE storm and Winnipeg floods or could they have been handled be another organization as well,

Well, that depends. What you need there is manpower. It doesn't really matter who provides it. Of course, even better, is heavy equipment, and lots of it.

one that has the equipment, manpower and funding to pull off these types of missions

Well first, I'd restore funding the Heavy Urban Search and Rescue teams that the Conservatives cut - the Liberals have promised to do that. Then I'd create a federal department that would be charged with air, ground, and water SAR. It would no longer be the CCG and RCAF.

.....Oh wait we do have an organization it is called the military....now you want to down size the military and create another similar organization

Not similar at all. Not one gun

....Take a minute gather your thoughts, your all over the map.....

Not at all. We have police for civil disturbances. They're now better armed than ever, and have para military equipment. WE have HUSAR and USAR teams for cities. We need to create volunteer organizations with the manpower and equipment for things like floods.

Wilber · July 6, 2016

It's not like they're going to have anything armed to the point of making them irrelevant - at least, not in the arctic.

Uh.

Smallc · July 6, 2016

Uh.

The Russian icebreakers have a gun armament. These will have a gun armament, and can carry a torpedo wielding helicopter. It's a huge improvement.

Derek 2.0 · July 6, 2016

You keep a minimum of forces there permanently but have facilities to support a lot more if things get tense. Troops in company or even platoon strength, rotate a flight of fighters in and out with a tanker and other support equipment plus an AA missile battery and radars to protect them.

More things if things get "tense"? If things got tense with the Russians, and you needed to protect your Arctic base, your force better be wearing 12000000 spf sunscreen............This isn't a new scenario, both the Americans and Russians bomber forces have had extensive plans and the munitions to go with them to attack each others air defense networks since the late 1950s/early 1960s.....the B-52s were carrying Hound Dog (nukes) missiles that were designed to go after Russian air defense radars and Mig ground controllers since the 1960s......the Russians developed their own missiles

The idea, to include it in any NORAD/ air defense of Canada strategy beggars belief...........and hasn't been done by the Americans, Russians and Canadians because its so utterly stupid.

You do it for the same reason the Brits built RAF Mt. Pleasant in the Falklands. To send the message that Canada is serious about protecting its arctic sovereignty and anyone who messes with it will meet resistance. Right now we are sending the message to Putin and anyone else who is interested that they can come and take the whole damn archipelago because we won't lift a finger to stop them. They won't have to launch or risk anything, just walk in and take it.

Complete apples to oranges.......the Falklands are at the max range of the Argies air force.......Mt. Pleasant's alert aircraft have plenty of air raid warning.......and of course, they're not facing a prospect of a nuclear armed bomber force.

If the Russians "walk in and take it" they have committed an act of war against NATO........hasn't happened yet, something must be working. :rolleyes:

You guys talk like the Russians can magically project all their military might across the Arctic Ocean when they couldn't do anything remotely close. No one could do that, not even the Americans. This isn't the same as trying to stop massed tank armies on the North German Plain.

They can, they just proved that they can conduct a strategic bombing campaign with their bomber force against Syria.....their sub force is still very real and can operate in the Arctic......the same of course is true with the Americans.

A lone Canadian base, aside from the waste of resources and money, would do nothing to deter the Russians if they intended to attack North America, likewise as outlined above, would prove itself of little value in the first few minutes of said Russian attack.

You want to exert our ownership of the Arctic? Wrestle mineral rights away from the Inuit and let business develop it with private money.......good luck with that.

Army Guy · July 6, 2016

The link you posted has a table, is that what you mean by 'graph'? The left side is GDP, and the right side is Military Spending. If you note, the right side has the 'rank' column with the entry for Canada listed at 127, but the right side is sorted by absolute spending ($US assumed) and Canada is the 20'th entry down on that side.

My bad I have read the table wrong.....your right...

left hand side is the Total GDP of each nation, Canada rates 15 over all, in regards to overall GDP numbers....

the right hand of the scale is for percentage of GDP spent on military, to which we rank 124 th....or 1.1 %.the table has been sorted by total amount spent on military expenditures to which Canada is in 20 th spot or 14. bil.

Wilber · July 6, 2016

More things if things get "tense"? If things got tense with the Russians, and you needed to protect your Arctic base, your force better be wearing 12000000 spf sunscreen............This isn't a new scenario, both the Americans and Russians bomber forces have had extensive plans and the munitions to go with them to attack each others air defense networks since the late 1950s/early 1960s.....the B-52s were carrying Hound Dog (nukes) missiles that were designed to go after Russian air defense radars and Mig ground controllers since the 1960s......the Russians developed their own missiles

The idea, to include it in any NORAD/ air defense of Canada strategy beggars belief...........and hasn't been done by the Americans, Russians and Canadians because its so utterly stupid.

Complete apples to oranges.......the Falklands are at the max range of the Argies air force.......Mt. Pleasant's alert aircraft have plenty of air raid warning.......and of course, they're not facing a prospect of a nuclear armed bomber force.

If the Russians "walk in and take it" they have committed an act of war against NATO........hasn't happened yet, something must be working.

They can, they just proved that they can conduct a strategic bombing campaign with their bomber force against Syria.....their sub force is still very real and can operate in the Arctic......the same of course is true with the Americans.

A lone Canadian base, aside from the waste of resources and money, would do nothing to deter the Russians if they intended to attack North America, likewise as outlined above, would prove itself of little value in the first few minutes of said Russian attack.

You want to exert our ownership of the Arctic? Wrestle mineral rights away from the Inuit and let business develop it with private money.......good luck with that.

You don't think the Argies could save up their pennies and buy a supersonic cruise missile capable of taking out Mt. Pleasant?

Your problem is you are all about fighting a war. How about preventing one by showing a little strength yourself.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Wilber

Derek 2.0 · July 6, 2016

The Russian icebreakers have a gun armament. These will have a gun armament, and can carry a torpedo wielding helicopter. It's a huge improvement.

Not much torpedo wielding done in the Arctic.........what with the ice and the effect it has on sonar and all

The Russians have supersonic bombers with supersonic anti-ship missiles.......comparing them to the AOPS is like bringing toe-nail clippers to a gunfight.

Derek 2.0 · July 6, 2016

You don't think the Argies could save up their pennies and buy a supersonic cruise missile capable of taking out Mt. Pleasant?

Your problem is you are all about fighting a war. How about preventing one by showing a little strength yourself.

Sure they could (not likely) but they would be launching far outside the Falklands air defense zone and the typhoons would already be on their intercepts.......when the Argies get Blackjacks and nuclear tipped missiles, I'm certain the British would reevaluate.......

You're missing the point, you're not showing strength by basing your air defenses that close to the Russians.......you're showing stupidity.......and is why nobody does it.

Wilber · July 6, 2016

Sure they could (not likely) but they would be launching far outside the Falklands air defense zone and the typhoons would already be on their intercepts.......when the Argies get Blackjacks and nuclear tipped missiles, I'm certain the British would reevaluate.......

You're missing the point, you're not showing strength by basing your air defenses that close to the Russians.......you're showing stupidity.......and is why nobody does it.

The Falklands are a lot closer to Argentina than the Resolute is from Russia. But I take it your feel we need a nuclear deterrent to defend our arctic because that's what Russia will use on little old Resolute. What nonsense.

How would the Brits reevaluate, target Buenos Aires with their SLBM's? Get serious.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Wilber

Derek 2.0 · July 6, 2016

The Falklands are a lot closer to Argentina than the Resolute is from Russia. But I take it your feel we need a nuclear deterrent to defend our arctic because that's what Russia will use on little old Resolute. What nonsense.

How would the Brits reevaluate, target Buenos Aires with their SLBM's? Get serious.

Not for a Mirage or Skyhawk compared to a Blackjack or Backfire.......during the actual War, the Argentinian air force was at its max range for attacking both the fleet and the landing zones........If Buenos Aires obtained nukes you had better believe the British would target their capital and largest cities with their nuclear deterrent..

The Russians won't currently attack Resolute because there is nothing there........you put basing for fighters, tankers, troops, air defenses etc (as you suggested) they would turn it into a parking lot if they were attacking North America.

Answer this simple question..........if what you proposed had so much merit........what aren't the Americans doing it? Or the Russians? :rolleyes:

Smallc · July 6, 2016

The Russians have supersonic bombers with supersonic anti-ship missiles.......comparing them to the AOPS is like bringing toe-nail clippers to a gunfight.

And we have F-18s. I wasn't talking about air assets.

Smallc · July 6, 2016

Answer this simple question..........if what you proposed had so much merit........what aren't the Americans doing it? Or the Russians?

I was actually talking about using our current FOBs - Inuvik, Iqaluit, Goose Bay, Comox, etc, and having air assets there all the time.

Wilber · July 6, 2016

Answer this simple question..........if what you proposed had so much merit........what aren't the Americans doing it? Or the Russians?

The Americans are. It's 500 miles from Eielson to Deadhorse. It's 2000 from Cold Lake to Alert.

Army Guy · July 6, 2016

Well, that depends. What you need there is manpower. It doesn't really matter who provides it. Of course, even better, is heavy equipment, and lots of it.

Well then who is going to provide all that manpower and heavy equipment...along with command and control, air and sea lift to get it all in there....and an organization that can respond in short notice.....

Well first, I'd restore funding the Heavy Urban Search and Rescue teams that the Conservatives cut - the Liberals have promised to do that. Then I'd create a federal department that would be charged with air, ground, and water SAR. It would no longer be the CCG and RCAF.

You mean these guys right.....A specialized SAR, that would provide what to rescue at sea, in the north, or downed aircraft in the middle of no where....How do they get there do they have aircraft, do they have an airborne capability....So if we have an earth quake or collapsed building these guys are the bomb, a call to rescue someone on the ice pack in the north....another story....

Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) is a general term for a group of specialized rescue skills that are integrated into a team with resources that include, search, medical and structural assessment capacity. Heavy USAR (HUSAR) Task Forces locate trapped persons in collapsed structures and other entrapments using specially trained dogs and electronic search equipment. The Task Forces breach, shore, lift and remove structural components, use heavy construction equipment to remove debris, and medically treat and transfer victims.

Not similar at all. Not one gun

and I thought we were talking about FLQ Crisses, a terrorist organization. And OKA, you know that the government was asked to handled a situation that the QPP could not, in fact QPP swat units tried and failed.....so now the RCMP has a few C-8, and a few Armoured cars....but it does not mean they have the training to handle an FLQ or OKA case....a little more than a civil disturbance.

Not at all. We have police for civil disturbances. They're now better armed than ever, and have para military equipment. WE have HUSAR and USAR teams for cities. We need to create volunteer organizations with the manpower and equipment for things like floods.

Why would we need to create a new organization ,with new funding, a whole string of equipment purchases.....when we can not fund the organization that does it now.....

Wilber · July 6, 2016

I was actually talking about using our current FOBs - Inuvik, Iqaluit, Goose Bay, Comox, etc, and having air assets there all the time.

There are no assets at Comox other than Aurora's and SAR aircraft.

Smallc · July 6, 2016

Well then who is going to provide all that manpower and heavy equipment

Right now the equipment is provided privately. I propose that continue, with the addition of volunteer disaster organizations.

...along with command and control,

That's what EMO is for.

air and sea lift to get it all in there

I didn't say that the military didn't have uses

....and an organization that can respond in short notice.....

Many organizations can do this - we aren't talking about fighting a war.

You mean these guys right.....A specialized SAR, that would provide what to rescue at sea, in the north, or downed aircraft in the middle of no where

Those things have nothing to do with each other. Each city should (and usually does) have its own HUSAR and USAR. Search and Rescue Canada would take over air SAR from the RCAF, water SAR from the CCG and RCMP, and land SAR from the RCMP.

....How do they get there do they have aircraft,

The equipment would no longer be needed by the CCG and military.

do they have an airborne capability

You'd be creating a new organization to pay for. There would be a cost In turn, you'd leave the money previously spent by the CCG and RCAF with them so that they could use it for other priorities

....So if we have an earth quake or collapsed building these guys are the bomb, a call to rescue someone on the ice pack in the north....another story....

You got my stories crossed. Those things would be done by different people. The military would provide additional manpower if necessary from their smaller structure.

and I thought we were talking about FLQ Crisses, a terrorist organization.

Which has nothing to do with the military, and should never have. That is the job of local police, the RCMP, and CSIS.

And OKA, you know that the government was asked to handled a situation that the QPP could not, in fact QPP swat units tried and failed.....so now the RCMP has a few C-8, and a few Armoured cars....but it does not mean they have the training to handle an FLQ or OKA case

Their training changed directly as a result of those incidents.

....a little more than a civil disturbance.

It was little more than a civil disturbance, you mean

Why would we need to create a new organization ,with new funding, a whole string of equipment purchases.....when we can not fund the organization that does it now.....

Because that organization (the military) shouldn't try to be all things to all people. If we strip away some of their other duties, and leave them with their current budget, whilst spending new money on the new organizations, I think it would be far more politically palatable.

Smallc · July 6, 2016

There are no assets at Comox other than Aurora's and SAR aircraft.

The odd time, when we've had to intercept an airliner of the west coast, I believe we've used it as a forward operating location (even though it isn't officially one). We've done the same with Goose Bay. Officially, we have 4 in the arctic - Inuvik, Yellowknife, Rankin Inlet, and Iqaluit.

?Impact · July 6, 2016

Returning to the submarine subthread.

The German type 212 fuel cell submarine has already had 14 & 18 day submerged (ie. no snorkelling) runs, and it is 90's technology. You would expect that 20 years later we could build even more capable non-nuclear submarines for use under the arctic ice.

An interesting note is that some of the first production British submarines were built in Montreal over a century ago. Like all our military manufacturing capabilities, we have lost that.