Damian Brooks on the Martin campaign’s response to the Conservative defense platform;
Read the whole thing, but take a Gravol first. Those familiar with the military bureaucracy will tell you that for even one general officer to use such blunt language means the situation is truly dire. For all three service heads to use such language in a single year is not only a sign of the coming Apocalypse, it means they can hear the galloping hoofs of the Four Horsemen close behind them.
link please or am I blind?
Read it where?
http://www.babblingbrooks.blogspot.com/
Go there people.
Whoops! Shall fix.
The galloping hoofs are the sound of the horse and buggy calvary that Team Martin (like Team Rocket on Pokemon but less intelligent) has supplied us with to fight our new offensive that we’re launching in the Shire.
Giddeeup.
About 25 years ago I was driving back from an oil rig in northern Alberta, picked up a young Indian fellow hitchhiking on the highway, he was quite proud when he told me he was going to Edmonton to “join the army”, they were going to train him to be a heavy-duty diesel mechanic. I’d never pick up an Indian hitchhiker now, what happened to me? Or did the country change? Both changed I guess.
While I would not trust the Liberals to do anything significant for the Forces in the long-run (eg. the back-loading of their proposed expenditure increases), Harper’s announcement isn’t much either in reality.
All he really promises over and above the Liberals is the three strategic airlifters (C-17s). He says nothing about heavy-lift helicopters.
A recreated airborne battalion of 650 troops–a sop to the sharp-enders–might be nice (but will never go in by parachute); but the Liberals are already pledged to increase the Forces by 5,000 (most probably for the army) so there is no net gain there. And it was silly for Harper to say the battalion would be based at Trenton. The base is divided by a four-lane civilian road and is in the middle of populated suburbia. There is no room for infantry to train (the airborne would in reality be infantry). They should be based in Petawawa, as they were before.
Doubling DART is just a sop the the warm and fuzzies. If Harper were serious about helping the military he would have said that capital costs for DART will be shared between CIDA (foreign aspect) and the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (domestic aspect), with operational costs paid for by CIDA (abroad) and Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (home).
Three C-17s, however desirable, are not a real answer to the Forces’ great problems. Their main relevance is to dispatch DART rapidly and DART deploys only rarely. They would be useful to support a land-locked mission such as in Afghanistan but by the time any Canadian C-17s were operational–several years–will we still be in Afghanistan? Almost all other military missions can readidly be supplied by sea and new C-130Js (which the Liberals have in effect said they will fast-track buy). There is virtually zero chance that Canadian troops will need to be urgently deployed anywhere for either combat or peace-keeping/making so that C-17 capability is not required.
With regard to sea lift, Harper made no reference to the three Joint Supply Ships the Liberals plan to acquire. No doubt Harper will make an announcement about these in Quebec, St. John or Halifax promising such ships will be built in Canada–jobs and votes. Which will add significantly to their cost and the time it will take to get them. Such ships are readily available from several countries.
Mark
Ottawa
“In an effort to educate a woefully underinformed colleague of mine this morning, I ventured onto the Liberal campaign site.”
Damian what qualifies you to be an informer?
Remember it was big C conservative John Diefenbaker that cancelled the Avro Arrow project in a deal with the devil. This left Canada with no capability or aeronautical defense research the effects of which haunt us to this day.
Maybe you should spend some time on manscaping to improve your sexiness. This could be a better use of your time rather than pretending to be an expert.
The view from Trenton:
http://www.intelligencer.ca/webapp/sitepages/printable.asp?paper=www.intelligencer.ca&contentID=137410&annewspapername=Belleville+Intelligencer
‘Printed from http://www.intelligencer.ca web site Friday, December 16, 2005 – � 2005 Belleville Intelligencer
Tory�s defence plan offers nothing new
Editorial:
Thursday, December 15, 2005 – 10:00
Editorial – Stephen Harper is the first federal leader to swing through Quinte, sprinkling promises of government spending as he goes.
On this visit the first of what our newsroom pundits predict will be three, in total Harper said he�d increase spending by 1.8 billion on the air force and specifically at CFB Trenton.
The policy will see, if Conservatives form a government, CFB Trenton become a central hub for Canadian deployments abroad.
We have a bit of news for Harper and his advisors CFB Trenton has long been the central hub for Canadian deployments abroad.
It�s just that personnel at 8 Wing have been operating as that central hub using aging equipment, but utilizing crafty innovation and their skills to keep deployments effective and operating around the world.
Placing a heavy emphasis on sovereignty throughout his campaign speech, Harper said it is imperative to see the country fulfill its national responsibilities including the delivery of effective emergency response and to protect Canada�s vast territory. The Conservatives� policy on the military would see this happen through increased funding, re-establishment of an airborne regiment based at 8 Wing and increasing the fleet of aircraft stationed at CFB Trenton.
The Tory platform also calls for replacements for the military�s aging fleet of C-130 Hercules tactical transport planes and new search-and-rescue aircraft purchases the Liberals have already endorsed.
The party�s defence critic, Gordon O�Connor, a retired army brigadier-general, said he�s developed an all-encompassing, costed, revitalization plan for the Armed Forces and made suggestions on where new equipment and personnel should be placed.
You�re only getting one piece of the package here; there are many, many more pieces, he said.
But O�Connor denied that politics would trump military necessity when it came to locating new assets.
We assume, then, the Conservatives� urgent need for inroads in Ontario wouldn�t influence such a spectacular injection of defence spending at CFB Trenton.
While we applaud the Conservatives� recognition that our military needs more might and better gear, reinventing the airborne regiment and reminding us that we need newer aircraft is, well, nothing new.
ID- 137410′
Mark, while you make some interesting points (specifically, putting an Airborne battalion in Pet instead of Trenton, and changing the funding for DART), I think you’ve missed the boat on a number of points.
First off, reintroducing the idea of owned rather than rented strategic airlift is a big deal. You suggest that sealift and C-130s can handle our needs, but I strongly disagree. C-130s can’t move the MGS – heck, they can’t handle much of the army’s heavy equipment. In a country this size, we need stratlift for domestic operations, let alone international ones!
Your comments about sealift are well-taken, but citing the JSS as a Liberal venture is a bit of a stretch. Right now, there’s little substantive difference between what the Liberals proposed in the DPS and what the Conservatives were proposing in the last election. Remember the Liberal scaremongering over “aircraft carriers?” Besides, I fully expect an announcement touching on naval issues soon, and I doubt it will overlook the replenishment ship replacement.
You try to make a comparison between the idea of an Airborne battalion and the Liberals’ promise to recruit 5,000 new ‘peacekeepers.’ I don’t think it’s particularly relevant. New recruits wouldn’t be going straight into an Airborne battalion, and besides, the Conservatives are expected to make a manning announcement soon too.
Until all the announcements are out of the way, it’s not particularly constructive to look at what wasn’t included, although we can look at what was.
The Intelligencer editorial is a joke. It confuses a battalion with a regiment, and worse, it makes no mention of strat-lift (which is astonishing, given how it would change things at CFB Trenton – no more Antonovs).
Ron, get a life.
Damian, why do you think you’re not sexy?
Damian: Martin announced the Joint Support Ship project on 14 April before the 2004 election was called:
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-navalsc.htm
The Conservatives upped the capability ante and called for “hybrid aircraft carriers”–similar to vessels Italy, the Netherlands, UK and US already have (though I don’t think the Conservatives had really thought this through):
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/num/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/rotterdam/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/lpd/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/lpd17/
The Liberals then shamelessly misrepresented the proposal and ran their ads suggesting that very large carriers like the USN has were what the Conservatives had in mind.
It now appears that in addition to the three JSS the Navy is now considering a fourth ship that would be similar to the “hybrid carrier” idea.
http://www.navy.forces.ca/mspa_news/news_e.asp?id=164
‘Now, the Canadian Forces (CF) is planning for the addition of an amphibious ship, to support the Standing Contingency Task Force (SCTF) described in the Defence Policy Statement.
The new vessel would be designed to get ground forces ashore quickly.
�This amphibious ship is really designed to project the Land Forces from sea to shore � to get that critical mass of people and their equipment to shore in relatively short order, to be able to carry on with their operations immediately,� said Captain (N) Peter Ellis, Director of Maritime Requirements (Sea).
At sea, the amphibious ship would require the support of a replenishment ship like the JSS. This team could be used in many situations requiring CF support, including disaster relief or
evacuations…
The JSS and amphibious ship serve different purposes with complementary functions. The amphibious ship would be the front-line fighter: delivering its �weapons system�, ground forces, ashore. The JSS provides fuel, supplies, food and ammunition to support the ship and the Naval Task Group�s escorting ships’
Strategic airlift, as I said, would be desirable. The question is the large cost in comparison with the likely infrequency of cases when only such planes can do the job. We are unlikely to need them rapidly to deploy mobile guns systems to a theatre. Buying them simply for DART support would be real waste of military funds (I would abolish DART).
In the event of a major disaster within Canada I think we can rely on the US to provide additional airlift to our own tactical capabilities (if we have the aircraft and they are much more needed now than strategic lift)–the US did this during the 1998 ice storm.
In the old airborne recruits did not enter it directly. The airborne only took fully trained soldiers from other regiments, to which they returned after a tour in the airborne.
Towards its end the airborne regiment was battalion-sized (as in the Conservative proposal) so the Intelligencer was not being stupid.
http://members.tripod.com/TimothyCoderre/1968-1995.htm
Good discussion,
Mark
Ottawa
The funny thing is that the discussion is largely academic: it relies both on Conservatives winning the election AND on another party supporting the increased defence spending. I don’t see either the Bloc or the Dippers going for it.
Good ideas or not, the smart money says they won’t happen anytime soon.
Damian: I should add that what’s most missing in the Harper statement (and unrealistic in the government’s “Defence Policy Statement”) is a realistic policy concerning the Canadian Forces as a whole. The country simply will not pay the money to maintain three fully combat-capable services with modern equipment.
In fact the only service–though I loathe saying it–that is much use in serving foreign policy goals, asserting “Canadian values” (whatever those are) abroad, and assisting the civil power in Canada is the Army.
The CF should be redesigned as a mini-Marine Corps with the Navy and Air Force configured to support Army operations. That would mean getting rid of the subs and eventually the blue-water destroyers and frigates; other NATO countries have lots of these vessels to support the USN. Canada needs quite a few vessels more capable than the KINGSTON class coastal defence vessels to patrol the Atlantic and Pacific high seas off Canada.
The CF-18s are most unlikely ever again to be used in a significant combat role abroad. Some should be kept, and eventually replaced, to patrol Canadian airspace–unless we want the US to do it.
The Air Force should concentrate on transport to support the Army (maybe also attack helicopters) and on maritime patrol. If the Air Force (and the Navy) was re-jigged in the fashion proposed then strategic lift might be affordable–along with a larger and more capable Army.
Mark
Ottawa
Mark, you and disagree fundamentally on the role and scope of our armed forces.
Damian: Any disagreement is only based, on my part, on an appreciation of Canadian political–and international military–realities.
Mark
Ottawa
Mark,
Interesting discussion but once again armchair quarterbacking is just that. We will not truly know exactly what will happen when Harper becomes PM (optomistic, eh). After 12 years I think he might be surprised at the mess the previous tenant left behind. The military wish list will have to be gone over with a fine tooth comb and boiled down to what we really need to even function again.
As far as Airborne and Trenton goes, you are way off the mark. Before the demise of the airborne they were bussed/trucked down to Trenton (home base of the Hercs) to load up and jump. Not the most efficient solution but hey, they should have been based by themselves with all the training facilities there and air support just down the road. something like what Edmonton used to be. That was of course before politicians got into it. Hell, now Edmonton is an army post with a 12,000 foot long parking lot. That one was due to Cretien having a fit when Calgary went Reform.
Yes, there are one hell of a lot of things that need to get the forces back to being an ARMED Force, not a touchy feely peacekeeping flowers in-your-hair outfit.
Also, while I’m on a rant, I agree with the comments on NDHQ and the other HQs. The number of chair warmers is pathetic but don’t forget the vast mass of simple servants that also hang their hat there in the puzzle palace. Even at the base level, the amount of civilian contracting out is pathetic. Especially so when military folks are short shifted to overseas duty because most of an outfit is civilian and heaven help then if someone shoots at them.(i.e. cooks & supply)
Amen, pass the amunition.