Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)

[Eye In The Sky]

I shudder to think, however, where your community would be tomorrow if the Russians decided to scale up their submarine ops in the Atlantic and Pacific to even half the level of the cold-war ops.

My father is a retired Cold War *VP* type.  We've chatted about the caps they had then with the 30+ airframe fleet (that had 24+ hour endurance routinely) compared to the 14 total fleet of today with *less than 18 hour* endurance.  But, hey, ASW is dead don't you know??

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/russia-adds-kazan-to-its-nuclear-attack-submarine-fleet

 

[jaysfan17]

Good Evening everyone,

This new Defence Policy proposal that just came out surprised me with what the government has planned for the military. Although nothing is set in stone I would like to touch on the point where the Government wants to increase the amount of personnel in the Reg. and Reserve force. I wondering with all the "In demand"  trades (according to the Forces website) we have, would the standards on the aptitude tests be dropped a bit to help attract more people for those jobs?

 

[PuckChaser]

God I hope not. I'd rather we have empty spots than people who cannot pass a fairly easy CFAT.

 

[a_majoor]

People, please.

There have been a multitude of White papers and policy documents which promised much but delivered nothing. I don't want to hear Liberal talking heads, I want to see the certified cheques going to suppliers and contractors, and see the newly recruited servicemembers filling the empty files. I want to see trucks and AFV's in the hangers and parking lots, boots in the QM shelves (and on soldier's feet), ships at the quay or at sea and aircraft on the aprons.

Anything else is empty words.

And history and past performance is on the side of the second outcome.

 

[McG]

So, as a member of the profession of arms, it is not my place to comment on the ability/willingness/probability of one political party or another to follow through with its promises.  But, I can comment what those promises mean for national defence.  I know that some people will become violently ill if they do not spin a topic into partisan vitriol, but let's give the purely professional examination a try.  Without mention on Liberals or Conservatives (or any derogatory slang in-lieu) can we discuss the defence merits and shortfalls of the policy itself?

Then if (improbably) everyone agrees that the plan is right, the skeptics and practically minded can shift focus to the question of how to keep the government on track to achieve its promises.

 

[Eland2]

My personal thoughts on the new Defence Policy are a mixed bag. On the one hand, more support for soldiers, their families and veterans is a good thing. On the other, I'm scratching my head over why we need reservists functioning as linguists. I mean, wouldn't this be a function better allocated to regular force intelligence units?

As to having reservists take on light urban SAR duties - wouldn't this kind of tasking be better and more cheaply handled by civilians? Maybe stand up a civilian-operated Civil Defence Corps like they have in Ireland to handle this sort of thing, and then augment it with trained reservists if and when conditions dictate?

While there's a lot that's good about the plan, I have substantial reservations. For starters, there seems to be a lot of fluff, puffery, deliberate vagueness and smoke and mirrors going on.

The Canadian Surface Combatant plan for the RCN and fighter jet purchases are already more or less capitalized, so there's really nothing new here, even though the Defence Plan tries to present it as new. The same holds true of the LAV fleet upgrades, which have already been capitalized and have been an ongoing process for some time now.

Armed drones are a good idea. Not only can they be used for offensive purposes if needed, they can also be used as recce/surveillance platforms in peacekeeping/peace-support operations. Restoring the air-defence assets we lost almost two decades ago is a good idea as well.

The other problem I have with the plan is the way it's costed. The official version of the plan seems to indicate that near the end of the plan, spending will rise to approximately 1.4% of GDP. But if you account for the effects of inflation, which erodes the time-value of money, the net result is that we will be barely spending more than 1% of GDP in real dollars and possibly less mid-way through the life of the plan and beyond. In this regard, the document is starting to look a lot like 'how to look like you're spending more money without actually spending it'.

The bottom line is that outside of the fighter jets, the new frigates/destroyers, the armed drones and LAV fleet upgrades, I'm not seeing any major, tangible advancements in the CF's combat capability through the new spending plan. I'm seeing a lot of stand-pat and nibbling around the edges. 

That is, where are the replacements for the CP-140 Auroras? What about replacements for the aging C3 howitzers, the LG1 105mm guns and existing 81mm mortar systems? Where are the anti-tank assets? Will the MCDVs be replaced along with that dog's breakfast fleet of subs we have?

How about a few more tanks so we don't have to cannibalize the 40-odd Leo 2A4 tanks that haven't been upgraded and are relegated to training purposes, if the shit hits the fan somewhere and we have to do a major combat deployment? And how about a competent recce vehicle instead of the TAPV, which really isn't designed to do recce? What about buying one or two Mistral-type LHD ships so we can rapidly deploy special forces and infantry and support them? And what, no attack helicopters?

I think the Senate Committee on Defence had the right idea when it recommended buying 12 new subs in addition to the projected 15 surface combatant ships and buying approximately 24 attack helicopters. 12 subs would go a long way toward making our small navy relatively powerful and a credible deterrent.

I'd go a bit further and suggest adding two nuclear-powered subs to patrol the arctic sea-lanes. With extensive automation and smaller crews characterizing a lot of modern subs, you wouldn't need to recruit a large number of sailors to operate the 12 subs that have been recommended. Although you would need a pretty substantial infrastructure to maintain them, and this would probably entail having to make CFB Esquimalt and CFB Halifax half again as large as they are now if not twice so.

As to defence policy overall, the only thing I support are general purpose, combat-capable forces that can be deployed anywhere in Canada in sufficient and credible numbers, and have the ability to meaningfully support and participate in NATO missions.

Peacekeeping is nice, but it's a luxury in today's threat environment. I've always had the idea that if you have general-purpose combat-capable forces, you can do peacekeeping, but if you have a peacekeeping-only force, you can't take on combat missions and be successful.

 

[suffolkowner]

Eland I see
1. 15 CSC's
2. 2 JSS
3. 5-6 AOPS
4. modernize Victoria class
5. 88 new fighters
6. CP-140 replacement
7. AAR CC-150 replacement
8. Twin Otter replacement
9. purchase of UAV's
10. Light forces modernization
11. LAV upgrade
12. GBAD addition
13. Arctic mobility enhancements
14. replace armoured combat support vehicles
15. modernize logistic and heavy engineering vehicles

I think there were supposed to be 18 so I'm missing some

 

[jmt18325]

16. Modernized CH-146
17. Modernized CH-149
18. New ground based air defence systems.

To the person you were responding to - it would be a good idea to read the plan before criticizing it, I'd say.

 

[a_majoor]

Eland is quite right that some of the proposed "capabilities" are either very strange or could be done quite well (if not better) using civilian resources. This seems to be part of the smoke and mirrors approach to add things of dubious or even non defense purposes to the defense budget to provide the appearance of growing towards the 2% of GDP mark that NATO members are supposed to spend on defense.

There is also not any real rigorous analysis of what, exactly, the Canadian Armed Forces is supposed to do. That of course would require a detailed examination of what Canada's Grand Strategy should be, define our National Interests and then allocate manpower and resources to these tasks. My own handwave of this would suggest that Canada's Navy would be the big winner, followed by sufficient airpower to project meaningful amounts of force across continental or oceanic distances (covering Canada's arctic and projecting power overseas across the Atlantic or Pacific oceans). This also suggests the Army would be inverted, and regiments might only be built around one mechanized battalion and have two "light" battalions appropriately armed and equipped to move rapidly and deploy lethal force wherever they land (along with appropriate light support and enablers as well). Of course since I didn't really do much more than quickly prioritize overseas trade and freedom of passage as being key elements of the Grand Strategy and National Interest, the layout is very vague and sketchy at best.

I doubt this state of affairs won't change until there is a very substantial change in the mentality of our governing, academic and bureaucratic classes (or I become Imperator, which is much the same thing  )

 

[FSTO]

Eland is quite right that some of the proposed "capabilities" are either very strange or could be done quite well (if not better) using civilian resources. This seems to be part of the smoke and mirrors approach to add things of dubious or even non defense purposes to the defense budget to provide the appearance of growing towards the 2% of GDP mark that NATO members are supposed to spend on defense.

There is also not any real rigorous analysis of what, exactly, the Canadian Armed Forces is supposed to do. That of course would require a detailed examination of what Canada's Grand Strategy should be, define our National Interests and then allocate manpower and resources to these tasks. My own handwave of this would suggest that Canada's Navy would be the big winner, followed by sufficient airpower to project meaningful amounts of force across continental or oceanic distances (covering Canada's arctic and projecting power overseas across the Atlantic or Pacific oceans). This also suggests the Army would be inverted, and regiments might only be built around one mechanized battalion and have two "light" battalions appropriately armed and equipped to move rapidly and deploy lethal force wherever they land (along with appropriate light support and enablers as well). Of course since I didn't really do much more than quickly prioritize overseas trade and freedom of passage as being key elements of the Grand Strategy and National Interest, the layout is very vague and sketchy at best.

I doubt this state of affairs won't change until there is a very substantial change in the mentality of our governing, academic and bureaucratic classes (or I become Imperator, which is much the same thing  )

For a government that is supposedly in tune with global warming and the plight of the 3rd world, the lack of shift towards the sea and the problems it will cause in the future is telling. No large flat deck ship that carries helicopters, landing craft, troops and equipment? That just shows a lack of imagination, foresight and strategic thinking that has bedeviled our governments since the Statute of Westminster.

IMHO of course.

 

[Loachman]

God I hope not. I'd rather we have empty spots than people who cannot pass a fairly easy CFAT.

Or find the CFAT thread here on this Fine Site.

 

[Loachman]

I want to see ... boots that don't fall apart or ruin people's feet in the QM shelves (and on soldier's feet

 

[Loachman]

http://www.ottawasun.com/2017/06/10/krayden-liberal-defence-review-is-as-durable-as-the-paper-its-printed-on

Krayden: Liberal defence review is as durable as the paper it’s printed on

David Krayden

First posted: Saturday, June 10, 2017 07:41 PM EDT | Updated: Saturday, June 10, 2017 07:49 PM EDT

Last week saw a pivotal moment in the life of Canada’s Liberal government. It achieved a profound moment of policy schizophrenia as it trumpeted a foreign policy on Tuesday that was undermined by a defence policy review on Wednesday.

Ultimately, however, both could be just the marijuana pipe dreams of a desultory government adrift in a sea of policy confusion.

Chrystia Freeland can be a credible foreign affairs minister, but there was not an air, but a stench of unreality to her House of Commons speech. She managed to exalt the soft power politics of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau while acknowledging the need for a credible military force to provide substance to the government’s rhetoric. The result was an exercise in muddled talking points, not consistent policy.

Her suggestions that Canada can no longer rely upon an America led by President Donald Trump and must therefore promulgate a defence policy and posture independent of the United States were false.

The first suggestion was merely wrong; the second assumption was ludicrous in the extreme.

The unveiling of the defence policy review the following day rectified those errors even as it  revealed a dangerous divide in the Liberal government between the people at foreign affairs and defence who don’t seem to be in direct communication with each other.

Reading the defence review, one is struck by how the tone of these documents changes very little from government to government, and this one, entitled Strong, Secure, Engaged, reads very much like a Conservative report in both tone and content. Unlike Freeland’s repudiation of the United States - or specifically the Trump administration - the policy review is ever mindful of Canada’s intimate defence relationship with the Americans and fully cognizant that Canada has not, cannot and will not ever provide for its defence needs without the co-operation of our closest ally.

That’s what’s good about this report. The fact that it also references $70 billion in extra defence spending over the next decade is also admirable, as are the promises to replace aging equipment, support military families, introduce cyber and intelligence functions within the military and increase the size of the regular force by 3,500.

Where this report fails is that it is essentially another trip through the Liberal fantasyland of defence procurement as the government - again - cruelly tempts and entices the Canadian Armed Forces with promises of money in the bank and equipment around the corner.

The Liberals might as well have promised $140 billion in new defence funding - and why not? When your promise takes a decade to unfold, it is a pledge that you can renege upon at any time.

Not only is it the height of arrogance for this government to assume it will be around for 10 years to implement this spending program, it illustrates the grand naïveté of any administration to think it can accurately predict how the world will look and what the military will need at the end of that decade.

Can you imagine how irrelevant a 10-year plan initiated in 1935 would have been in 1945? The world had changed almost beyond recognition.
Canadian governments have often played this wait-and-see game with national defence, proposing spending and planning projects that never comes to fruition.

It is time for governments to stop using our military for partisan ends. Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan had the opportunity to break that vile tradition last week. Despite his disgraced stature as a man who claimed to be the “architect” of battle in Afghanistan in which he was merely a participant, Sajjan is a former military member and he is capable to speaking soldier to soldier, sailor and airman.

Instead, he dragged 1,000 or more navy, army and Air Force personnel into the Cartier Drill Hall last week and forced them to listen to a blatantly political speech that lauded the Liberals’ unflinching support for defence and eviscerated the Conservatives for failing Canada’s military.

Sajjan knows that Canadian military is overwhelmingly Conservative in outlook and voting patterns, so he knows that statement would be received with a mixture of cynicism and disbelief.

For this defence policy review to become reality, it must be taken out of the hands of politicians and the funding needs to be not discretionary but a guaranteed budget that will be paid in annual instalments until the last dollar is spent.

Otherwise, this review is just another carpet that will be pulled from under the feet of the military men and women whenever the government deems it expedient or fiscally prudent to do so.

David Krayden is an Ottawa-based former Air Force public affairs officer and Parliament Hill communications manager.

 

[quadrapiper]

My personal thoughts on the new Defence Policy are a mixed bag. On the one hand, more support for soldiers, their families and veterans is a good thing. On the other, I'm scratching my head over why we need reservists functioning as linguists. I mean, wouldn't this be a function better allocated to regular force intelligence units?

Back door for civilian academic types, or keeping a surge capacity in a broad range of languages, beyond what's fiscally responsible in full time positions?

As to having reservists take on light urban SAR duties - wouldn't this kind of tasking be better and more cheaply handled by civilians? Maybe stand up a civilian-operated Civil Defence Corps like they have in Ireland to handle this sort of thing, and then augment it with trained reservists if and when conditions dictate?

Possibly this is being looked at as a task that can be a) effectively supported by the reserves, will b) allow some good interagency/photo-op/out in the public eye time, and c) will allow for greater variety in training at PRes units. Maybe also d) there's already CAF involvement in e.g. flooding (I know LUSAR as such is more broken buildings, but...) so might as well train to meet that task.

 

[George Wallace]

I want to see ....... boots that don't fall apart or ruin people's feet in the QM shelves (and on soldier's feet

Hard to do when those contracts are given out by Public Works to the LOWEST BIDDER, not the best manufacturer with the best quality product.  Decisions made by some penny pincher who has no idea of the real need, the real cost in the end, and does not care for the end user.  Saving five cents up front, but costing a dollar down the road, seems to the financial philosophy of these people......and perhaps the reason the Government can not balance its books properly.  A question I always seem to come back to when I wonder what our 'Financial Gurus' are teaching in our Business Schools and universities these days?

 

[McG]

... would the standards on the aptitude tests be dropped a bit to help attract more people for those jobs?

God I hope not. I'd rather we have empty spots than people who cannot pass a fairly easy CFAT.

It would seem that both recruiting and retention requirements may be under consideration for review:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadian-military-to-relax-deployment-readiness-rule/article35281256/

... but, if Cyber is the new example for a rising occupation where pers could enrol and never deploy, should we not actually be asking if cyber aught not to be a civilian vocation?

 

[McG]

Hard to do when those contracts are given out by Public Works to the LOWEST BIDDER ...

Do you know this, or is your entire post an argument from the point of assumption?  Generally, lowest cost compliant has been a discouraged selection criteria for major projects as it is not seen to get good value.

Now, I am not arguing in defence of any particular boot.  But I will say we manage to screw up a lot of things ourselves without the "lowest cost compliant" bogeyman ever playing a role.

 

[George Wallace]

Do you know this, or is your entire post an argument from the point of assumption?

If you really want to nit pick; then, not being the actual purchasing agent, it is from the "point of assumption" taken from a long experience of seeing what kind of kit we have been handed over the years and off handed conversations with some people a little closer to the inner workings of those decision makers.

Numerous examples are out there.  I could point to the Iltis purchase.  I could point out the Leopard roadwheels manufactured in Canada and re-rubbered in Canada versus the roadwheels of German origin.  Or perhaps look at some of the construction being done on Bases across the country.  The range that one can cover, Ships to infrastructure to clothing to vehicles to aircraft......the whole spectrum; have examples of low bidders winning everywhere.  Added expense is added to undo or replace some of these products. 

 

[Loachman]

Assumptions are not always correct, regardless of appearances.

Generally, lowest cost compliant has been a discouraged selection criteria for major projects as it is not seen to get good value.

Good. Has this helped?

I will say we manage to screw up a lot of things ourselves without the "lowest cost compliant" bogeyman ever playing a role.

Tac Vest.

Political decisions vice military ones come to mind as well.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

If you really want to nit pick; then, not being the actual purchasing agent, it is from the "point of assumption" taken from a long experience of seeing what kind of kit we have been handed over the years and off handed conversations with some people a little closer to the inner workings of those decision makers.

Numerous examples are out there.  I could point to the Iltis purchase.  I could point out the Leopard roadwheels manufactured in Canada and re-rubbered in Canada versus the roadwheels of German origin.  Or perhaps look at some of the construction being done on Bases across the country.  The range that one can cover, Ships to infrastructure to clothing to vehicles to aircraft......the whole spectrum; have examples of low bidders winning everywhere.  Added expense is added to undo or replace some of these products.

I happen to personally know the owner of the company that does this work.  Here is an interesting tidbit for you George, the rubber used isn't the best rubber but it is not the company doing this. 

Track pads and wheels use synthetic rubber instead of natural rubber.  The reason for this is because in WWII the Axis controlled nearly all the Worlds natural rubber supply.  There was a rubber shortage so it was mandated that track pads be made with synthetic rubber.

The problem is synthetic rubber is 4x the cost of natural rubber and has a lifespan that's a quarter that of synthetic rubber. 

He actually made a pitch to make track pads using natural rubber; however, the military refused to change their specs.  In the end, he is more than happy to take more money  ;D