Wasting Canadian Blood and Treasure

[Smallc]

When did the CDS set political policy in Canada? That's new.......

He wanted this mission, as confirmed by government sources. I forgot who I'm talking to. I think that's enough for now.

[Derek 2.0]

He wanted this mission, as confirmed by government sources. I forgot who I'm talking to. I think that's enough for now.

Again, when did the CDS set Government policy?

[Derek 2.0]

No one would nuke Moscow over Canada either. I can say it with certainty.

No, you say it with ignorance, devoid of the knowledge of conditions of nuclear response by both NATO and NORAD.........NATO very much so was prepared to use nukes to defend West Germany, likewise the use of nukes if required to defend North America via NORAD.......

[Smallc]

Ahh no, I live in the real world........A handful of Leopards aren't going to halt a tank regiment.........your M777s, TOWs and dam near everything else would be combat ineffective once a Russian Armored Corps opened up its first couple of salvos form its numerous self propelled and rocket batteries.......and you think air defense is the missing link? What you don't think "Canadian training" could defend against dozens upon dozens of Hinds and Frogfoots?

Ahhh Fantasy land..........

Ahh, what makes you think that's what I said? I said that the Netherlands (and others), with its handful of air defence and mobile gun systems, would fare no better against a Russian onslaught.

[Army Guy]

When was the last time Canada fought in a mechanized war of mobility? I'll go with Holland and Italy in 1944-45.......

Almost every mission Canada takes on is based on mechanized warfare, from our peacekeeping operations to our latest mission in Afghanistan. Almost every formation we send is a Mech Inf BN or battle group. Since we have no other capabilities, no Airborne , Airmobile Bns. or marine type forces...Sure we have serveral light Bn's but even they are mechanized or motorized. Yes they do limited training in regards to these type of operations, but for the most part all their training is based on the mechanized role....

That being said our mechanized forces are paper forces only, sprinkled with some dated IFV, and even more dated combat support equipment....to think we could take on even a third world nation in a medium or high intensity warfare is wishful thinking. we don't have the equipment and what we do have there is not enough....

Someone mentioned our army is full of combat veteran's....not true, a lot of those that have Afghanistan experience have left the forces, you may have 40 to 50 % that now have combat experience, but then again lets put that into context, there is less than 3000 Infantry soldiers, maybe 3000 other combat arms soldiers including Combat eng, Arty, tankers, That is including all those in training schools, recruit schools, advance training schools, and those already on mission around the world and on postings around the world....Of course those numbers also include members not fit operations due to mental or physical conditions, which could be as high as 20 % of your total number.....That is across the entire country.....

[Argus]

And that's why we need to focus more resources on the air force and navy and shrink the army. The army will not deter Russia from violating Canada's territorial sovereignty.

What we need to do is focus more resources on the trigger pullers and in buying their equipment, the best we can find, as cheaply as we can. This means less billions to paper pushers and bureaucrats in Ottawa, and less billions used as economic and industrial subsidies for companies across Canada.

[Argus]

NATO isn't going in to a mechanized war. We've already been over this.

So not only do you have better insight into what the military needs than -- the military, but you can see into the future. What a talented guy!

[Argus]

Argus, take a look at page 8:

http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160704_160704-pr2016-116.pdf

Do you still think Canada spends more than other NATO countries on personnel?

Yes. You can't judge things from a table which explains nothing. For example, according to this table the NATO members which spends the most on equipment is uh... Luxembourg. We know that's silly, so the numbers are probably impacted by how tiny their military is. Likewise what does 'personnel' mean? Does it include civilian members? Does it include pensions and benefits? Plus, an even more important aspect is just how many of our 'personnel' are chair warmers in Ottawa, civilian or military, compared to other people? Do you recognize a difference between paying 10,000 infantrymen a salary and paying 10,000 human resources clerks a salary? Again, we have 100,000 regular employees, and how many are at the pointy end of the stick? A couple of hundred pilots, three under-strength regiments, and what, a couple of thousand sailors? What are the rest of them all doing to justify their salaries and benefits?

[Argus]

I've been told over and over again that Canada's $21B CAD per year doesn't count, because we spend more than any other NATO country on people.

More precisely, because we pay high salaries AND spend more on so very many people who have nothing to do with the combat arms. The vast majority of DND personnel probably wouldn't know what to do with a rifle if one fell on them.

[Smallc]

What we need to do is focus more resources on the trigger pullers and in buying their equipment, the best we can find, as cheaply as we can. This means less billions to paper pushers and bureaucrats in Ottawa, and less billions used as economic and industrial subsidies for companies across Canada.

Sure, as long as we include in those calculations the cost in lost revenue to the Canadian treasury.

[Smallc]

More precisely, because we pay high salaries AND spend more on so very many people who have nothing to do with the combat arms. The vast majority of DND personnel probably wouldn't know what to do with a rifle if one fell on them.

So you didn't look at the NATO chart, I take it.

Did you know that procurement spending increases by about 50% this year as we begin to receive trucks, armoured vehicles, and ships?

[Smallc]

Yes. You can't judge things from a table which explains nothing. For example, according to this table the NATO members which spends the most on equipment is uh... Luxembourg. We know that's silly, so the numbers are probably impacted by how tiny their military is.

You're talking nonsense. It's divided by percentage of budget, irrespective of budget size.

Likewise what does 'personnel' mean? Does it include civilian members? Does it include pensions and benefits?

Of course it does. It even makes clear it includes pensions.

Plus, an even more important aspect is just how many of our 'personnel' are chair warmers in Ottawa, civilian or military, compared to other people? Do you recognize a difference between paying 10,000 infantrymen a salary and paying 10,000 human resources clerks a salary? Again, we have 100,000 regular employees, and how many are at the pointy end of the stick? A couple of hundred pilots, three under-strength regiments, and what, a couple of thousand sailors? What are the rest of them all doing to justify their salaries and benefits?

The chart doesn't really give you much for fodder, but you can try.

[Argus]

Sure, as long as we include in those calculations the cost in lost revenue to the Canadian treasury.

You know, in every other capital purchase we have to buy whatever is cheaper. Why are military purchases exempt from that? Why is the military the only one who is told "Well, yes, Vehicle A and Vehicle B are comparable, and yes Vehicle A costs four times more than Vehicle B, but you have to buy Vehicle A because it's made here". You want to get credit for enormously overpriced capital purchases when most of that cost is going to economic subsidies to private sector companies, and not to the military.

[Argus]

You're talking nonsense. It's divided by percentage of budget, irrespective of budget size.

And I'm pointing out how the numbers can be affected to give an warped view of reality.

The chart doesn't really give you much for fodder, but you can try.

If you say so. I'm sure our legions of HR specialists will be glad to be shipped overseas to world trouble spots, or into the Arctic to push back against the Russians.

[Argus]

So you didn't look at the NATO chart, I take it.

Did you know that procurement spending increases by about 50% this year as we begin to receive trucks, armoured vehicles, and ships?

How nice. Uh, 50% from WHAT? I mean, what did we buy last year? Anything?

Your position is indefensible until we have sufficient modern equipment to equip at least three full regiments - not that we even HAVE three full regiments, mind you.

[Smallc]

How nice. Uh, 50% from WHAT? I mean, what did we buy last year? Anything?

Your position is indefensible until we have sufficient modern equipment to equip at least three full regiments - not that we even HAVE three full regiments, mind you.

Based on the chart we spent ~$2.7B on new equipment. This year that will be ~$4B.

[Army Guy]

You're talking nonsense. It's divided by percentage of budget, irrespective of budget size.

Of course it does. It even makes clear it includes pensions.

The chart doesn't really give you much for fodder, but you can try.

Yes but your charts lack the details in what that funding was spent on, for instance equipment purchases could include any purchase of equipment....or anything that is called major equipment, any vehs, or veh related equipment ie veh bourne shelters ie sea containers, runway equipment, civilian vehs, forklifts, heavy equipment required for training areas maintence, or snow removal, rentals, etc etc.....Nor does it mention funding put aside for future purchases, or past purchases.....

Coming back to Argus point, every major purchases are extensively covered in the media, with government not wanting to miss any photo op opportunities to make announcements of purchases or future plans.....So what did Canada buy with this 2.7 bil dollars ? or was it a combination of many smaller purchases that did not rate a media report....The fact remains DND has a sever equipment shortage, in all 3 elements....That need to be addressed by the current government as previous governments have passed the buck.

No it does not take into account any reserve or civilian salary's or MND employees, if you look at the other charts Canada has only 65,000 personal. meaning reserve and civilians were not included. In fact it has been reported in the media on many occasions that well over 60 % of the budget has been spent on salary's alone.....Hence why all the talk of reductions to allow for equipment purchases....with out need to increase DND over all budgets.

Your charts have to be taken into context, that context are not provided, rather it assumes the readers already have basic info required to put it all into some sort of sense. That is not happening here. So your charts are not the end all be all.

With out that basic inside info one would read it and think Canada's military is a modern combat machine....it is only when one uncovers all the camouflage it becomes clear.....you continued to think my opinion is all doom and gloom, and only my opinion.....and yet I've provided you with several media reports that say other wise, infact they back my doom and gloom insight....but you have brushed them aside preferring to continue on with every thing is fine .....

[Smallc]

Yes but your charts lack the details in what that funding was spent on, for instance equipment purchases could include any purchase of equipment....or anything that is called major equipment, any vehs, or veh related equipment ie veh bourne shelters ie sea containers, runway equipment, civilian vehs, forklifts, heavy equipment required for training areas maintence, or snow removal, rentals, etc etc.....Nor does it mention funding put aside for future purchases, or past purchases.....

That's true of every country, making the list valuable for comparative purposes. Starting this year, Canada will approach the NATO guideline of 20% being spent on new equipment. The money last year would have went to payments for the TAPV, the AOPS, and other ongoing projects like the LAV Up. Money for this year goes to the AOPS, TAPV, heavy trucks, LAV Up, JSS long lead, etc.

Coming back to Argus point, every major purchases are extensively covered in the media, with government not wanting to miss any photo op opportunities to make announcements of purchases or future plans.....So what did Canada buy with this 2.7 bil dollars ? or was it a combination of many smaller purchases that did not rate a media report....The fact remains DND has a sever equipment shortage, in all 3 elements....That need to be addressed by the current government as previous governments have passed the buck.

As we can see, that's true of many countries. It's unfortunate but reality.

No it does not take into account any reserve or civilian salary's or MND employees, if you look at the other charts Canada has only 65,000 personal.

No, you're wrong. The funding portion deals with the entire $21B defence budget. The personnel portion that you're referring to deals only with full time soldiers. Even pensions were included.

meaning reserve and civilians were not included. In fact it has been reported in the media on many occasions that well over 60 % of the budget has been spent on salary's alone.....Hence why all the talk of reductions to allow for equipment purchases....with out need to increase DND over all budgets.

The 60% figure comes as a result of the base budget being smaller than the overall budget (the base budget this year is $1.5B less than the overall budget).

Your charts have to be taken into context, that context are not provided, rather it assumes the readers already have basic info required to put it all into some sort of sense. That is not happening here. So your charts are not the end all be all.

The charts utterly dispute what you say, that's why.

With out that basic inside info one would read it and think Canada's military is a modern combat machine....it is only when one uncovers all the camouflage it becomes clear.....you continued to think my opinion is all doom and gloom, and only my opinion.....and yet I've provided you with several media reports that say other wise, infact they back my doom and gloom insight....but you have brushed them aside preferring to continue on with every thing is fine .....

Because you act as if it's only us. You focus only on the negative and ignore the procurements that are going on choosing to find fault with all of it.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Smallc

[Argus]

Because you act as if it's only us.

Untrue, but clearly we have more of an interest in OUR military and ensuring it is properly equipped than in other country's military.

I think the Germans have been cheaping out, for instance, and am not happy about it, but there are no Germans around for me to bitch at.

And I strongly disagree with your contention we should reduce the already tiny size of the land force. In my opinion we should have more like five full regiments, not three understaffed ones. That would still only give us about 6,000 infantry (and even that is exaggerated since a regiment also has supply people, repair people, truck drivers, cooks, etc.) The French are suddenly finding that their military, even with reserves, are severely overworked given the sudden security issues they have, and they're a hell of a lot bigger than ours.

[Derek 2.0]

Ahh, what makes you think that's what I said? I said that the Netherlands (and others), with its handful of air defence and mobile gun systems, would fare no better against a Russian onslaught.

The Dutch (and others) can contribute to NATO a self-sufficient combined arms mechanized unit........Canada (and others like Belgium, Estonia, Iceland etc) can not......

[eyeball]

It's like people are completely oblivious to our nuclear arsenal.

[Smallc]

The Dutch (and others) can contribute to NATO a self-sufficient combined arms mechanized unit.

That is so tiny it wouldn't make a bit of difference in a sweeping Russian attack. Canada can actually move troops and all equipment in and out of theatre. Even France lacks that without support. Canada brings things to the table that other mid sized allies lack, and the allies bring to the table things that we lack. That and common defence are the major purpose of NATO.

Edited July 23, 2016 by Smallc

[Smallc]

BTW, how is it that a country (the Nertherlands,) that doesn't even operate an independent tank squadron (they now have only 18 tanks, operated jointly with Germany) is considered to be able to operate a mechanized battalion?

[Derek 2.0]

That is so tiny it wouldn't make a bit of difference in a sweeping Russian attack.

I never said they could defend against a "sweeping Russian attack" alone.

Canada can actually move troops and all equipment in and out of theatre. Even France lacks that without support.

Are you that ignorant? The French, unlike Canada, can deploy (and support) an entire airborne brigade globally, Marines and their army anywhere in the world with a coast line and of course.......there is the Legion

None the less, in the context of the "Russian threat", the French can employ two combined arms armored divisions......in Europe.....via rail........Canada not so much.

Canada brings things to the table that other mid sized allies lack, and the allies bring to the table things that we lack. That and common defence are the major purpose of NATO.

Canada brings very little to a NATO strategy aimed at stopping several Russian tank armies.....

[Derek 2.0]

BTW, how is it that a country (the Nertherlands,) that doesn't even operate an independent tank squadron (they now have only 18 tanks, operated jointly with Germany) is considered to be able to operate a mechanized battalion?

Simple, a sole tank squadron is the standard ORBAT of a mechanized infantry battalion, combined with modern IFVs, self propelled artillery, engineers, layered air defense, logistics/headquarters and of course attack helicopters........Canada, with a larger economy and defense budget can't field a near equal force.