All matters Canadian / Canada

[davidbfpo]

A Canadian think tank review popped into my email box just and apologies for bein serious it may be of interest:http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/The%20Canad...ar%20Later.pdf

From the summary:

An objective examination of progress in the other three pillars of the CFDS – personnel, readiness and infrastructure – indicates some movement towards achieving a balanced military capability, even though the actual measurement of success is challenging.

[jmm99]

for some proper UK seriousness - after all, you (the UK, not "you") are the parent nation.

Reading the CF main page on Canada First Defence Strategy, took me to consideration of what is meant by "Canada First" (that is positing that the words are intended to mean something - not always the case for political documents).

Perhaps, its meaning is found in the Roles of the Canadian Forces:

To this end, the Government is giving the Canadian Forces clear direction concerning their three roles – defending Canada, defending North America and contributing to international peace and security – as well as the types and numbers of missions it expects our military to fulfill. This level of ambition will see the Canadian Forces deliver excellence at home, be a strong and reliable partner in the defence of North America, and project leadership abroad by contributing to international operations in support of Canadian interests and values.

My inference (which may be dead wrong) is posited on the roles being definitely weighted in the order stated: Canada, primary; North America, secondary; and international, tertiary. Of course, that may be wrong - and the roles could be differently weighted.

This brings me to my point (IMO). Canada's military problem from the gitgo (which I measure from 1608) has been too much geography and not enough people. The thought of defending Canada only, with its vast littorals and open spaces, is a daunting one to me. The concept of a very mobile combined arms force (akin to MAGTF + light Naval) seems most logical. If Canada can defend Canada and secure its borders, it will fully meet any obligation it might feel it owes to defend North America. What it feels it owes internationally is up to Canada. (IMO)

Another question I have is based in part on the Executive Summary, which envisions a very long-term series of increased military expenditures. Given the turnover in Canadian politics (just as in US politics), is there much probability that this 20-30 year plan will be implemented ?

Full plan .pdf.

What think ye, ye of Irish, French, beaver or goat heritage - and other serious folks as well ?

Regards

Mike

[tankersteve]

In my classes at the CFC, the great land mass of Canada is commonly considered indefensible, yet unassailable.

It is too much territory to cover, yet so big and open once landed on, it would be relatively simple to repulse an attacker. Much of the hospitable areas have local communities that would notice an invasion. The areas that have sparse human habitation get Canadian Ranger patrols occasionally.

Any invader into these areas really wouldn't accomplish much other than be really sorry about being in the frozen wastelands of Canada (coming from someone who spent a whole 4 days in Iqaluit, the capital of Nunavut).

Tankersteve

[031-Bacon,RG]

Steve is right: we've always planned to trade space for time - it worked for the Russians in WWII and it should have worked against them in the event of WWIII - until our NATO allies could get into motion.

JMM99, I also have no faith that successive governments will stick to the plan, nor am I holding my breath waiting for the current government to honour it's promises. Public support for the Afghanistan mission, or for new equipment to meet Forces needs, is tenuous at best; when budgets bring the military into competition with social programs, the military comes a distant second every time. An example of that battle is the deferral of construction of our new icebreakers - we won't get new toys if the ballet has to find corporate sponsors.

With respect to the composition of the future CF, I agree that the vast spaces, long coasts along three oceans, and an icebound archapelago should be considerations. If we are serious about asserting our sovereignty, we need to add the capacity to support ops across the littoral. A vessel that can transport troops, provide support for tactical and Chinook helicopters, and with the ability to land fighting and logistics vehicles, would not only suit our defense needs, but also allow us to project force in support of the national interest.

[RJ]

03 Bacon RG - The Marine Corps today has 3 Infantry Divisions and 3 Air Wings.

With supporting combat and logistic suport units the Marines have about 203 -205,000 troops

The Canadian Govt. should consider the Marine "Big Squad" concept of a Squad Leader and 3 fireteams equipted with 3 automatic weapons vs the smaller 9 or 10 man squads other military forces utilitize.

I'd point whoever is considering the big vs little squads argumements to the
Rifle Squad deliberations in the Trigger Puller forum cover the pros and cons in depth.

I'm a big fan of the Marine 13 man squad because I grew up in that environment. It works, it has depth, surivability and to ability to continue the attack and wreak losses on the enemy in a much higher ratio in a shorter length of time.

Ken White, who fought both sized squads in combat favors the more robust Marine Squad for serveral reason. That personal recommendation alone should convince any political, number crunching Scrooge in Canada.

I hope your politicans understand the generational threat we all face with the islamofacist elements who will not go away because we are capable of turning the other cheek.

I suspect there will be a lot of small war action in the next 30 years than having to defent the vast open spaces and depth in dfense your nation enjoys.

[RJ]

03 Bacon RG - The Marine Corps today has 3 Infantry Divisions and 3 Air Wings.

With supporting combat and logistic suport units the Marines have about 203 -205,000 troops

The Canadian Govt. should consider the Marine "Big Squad" concept of a Squad Leader and 3 fireteams equipted with 3 automatic weapons vs the smaller 8 or 9 man squads other military forces utilitize.

I'd point whoever is considering the big vs little squads argumements to the
Rifle Squad deliberations in the Trigger Puller forum cover the pros and cons in depth.

I'm a big fan of the Marine 13 man squad because I grew up in that environment. It works, it has depth, surivability and to ability to continue the attack and wreak losses on the enemy in a much higher ratio in a shorter length of time.

Ken White, who fought both sized squads in combat favors the more robust Marine Squad for serveral reason. That personal recommendation alone should convince any political, number crunching Scrooge in Canada.

I hope your politicans understand the generational threat we all face with the islamofacist elements who will not go away because we are capable of turning the other cheek.

I suspect there will be a lot of small war action in the next 30 years than having to defent the vast open spaces and depth in dfense your nation enjoys.

[GI Zhou]

Speaking to a few far more learned infantry warrant officer types the biggest issue regarding infantry squad size is moving them around the battlefield. Due to rail movement, and pesky things like small bridges and goat tracks - highways in some third world ####e hole, the vehicles have a width restriction. This means seven to ten soldiers with kit can squeeze into an APC/IFV/IMV etc. The marines have those big AAV7 'ordnance magnets' and the new Chinese ZDB05 amphibious infantry fighting vehicle is another large 'ordnance magnet' with lovely slab sides and thin armour.

[William F. Owen]

Speaking to a few far more learned infantry warrant officer types the biggest issue regarding infantry squad size is moving them around the battlefield.

Wrong. That is absolutely NOT the biggest issues. It's the opinion the has created nearly all the problems. The size of the section has NOTHING to do with the size of the vehicle,