Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy

[Brad Sallows]

Well, we can always dump the aid and let local militants take charge of distribution.

 

[Altair]

Ultimately, we need to understand how the powers that be think about defense (if they do at all). Nonsensical pronouncements like replacing bombing and boots on the ground with aid distribution shows an astonishing lack of understanding of how the world works (you are going to be able to distribute jack s*** if you don't control the ground, and of course you need the logistical chain going all the way back to warehouses in Canada to get the goods from point a to b in the first place). And cancellation of the CF-35 kills the ability of the CF to learn and practice "network node" forms of warfare for a generation or more, making us increasingly inoperable with our allies and unable to effectively defend against such forms of warfare by peer enemies.

I'm rather afraid that most of the "thinking" about defense will be on the same level as above, and while we may wish for a White Paper, it may be like the one which the Sun King delivered back in 1971 (and the one Edward detests so much).

Be careful what you wish for......

yes, I'm sure Europe is falling way behind as well then.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Aside from being an Army Sigs Pte " fresh out of basic" is there something else in your resume that adds value and credibility to your input?

 

[Altair]

Aside from being an Army Sigs Pte " fresh out of basic" is there something else in your resume that adds value and credibility to your input?

Logic? Also, haven't updated that since, well, when I was fresh out of basic.

If Europe can operate with American fighters without falling behind, I don't see why canada would if we picked up a European fighter.

Or you can continue to question me on my background, but I can assure you that I'm not that interesting.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I just like to know who has an opinion, vice an informed and/or experience-based opinion.  Lots of folks in green DEU think the air force is simpler than it is;  I was one of them  not all that many years ago.  Now having operated in a coalition environment and joint environment in a 3D battlespace maritime and overland, I "get" why air force mission element types need to be able to run with the horses.

 

[Baz]

If Europe can operate with American fighters without falling behind, I don't see why canada would if we picked up a European fighter.

What forms my opinion:
- recently retired after 26 years in uniform
- overall specialized in Tactical systems
- bi-national planning group in CSprings
- surveillance officer at NATO AGSIO
- targeting staff officer at SHAPE  J2 ISTAR branch

I've said this before: in my opinion, if we want to do expeditionary air, then the only game in town is the F-35.

In Libya, we were a player, for reasons more than just the 6 pack.  Without the F-35 those reasons may not sustain.

Most European countries *are* falling behind.

Big caveat though: don't listen to the Air Forces of the world about the long term effectiveness of bombing campaigns alone.  They have almost always been tactical successes, operational washes, and strategic failures by themselves; ie without follow on action.  My opinion is that is happening against ISIS, backed up by credible sources.

So, I'll say it again: does the cost of expeditionary air make it worthwhile?  That is a question only the nation can answer, and the government represents the nation, for better or worse.

 

[a_majoor]

Altair, the modalities of warfare have expanded so dramatically even in just the last 10 years that anyone who is serious about defense realizes that *we* need vastly expanded capabilities, not the cancellation of cutting edge technologies. Consider in a different context that in the 1980's we had the ability to defend ground forces against incoming aircraft and PGM's using ADATS/Skyguard; a capability that folded it's tent and was retired in the 1990's and never renewed. How easy do you think it would be to revive GBAD expertise and re acquire the technologies needed for the expanded C-RAM (Counter Rockets, Artillery & Missiles) role from scratch if rocket attacks against deployed NATO/CF forces in Ukraine or Syria were to take place?

Network node devices like the CF-35 are more than just shiny aircraft; their sensors and capabilities can be used to control all kinds of other capabilities, leveraging everything that we have now and could get in the future. No network nodes, no leverage. This affects all services, not just the RCAF. The very limited and short term thinking which characterized Liberal defense pronouncements isn't just detrimental to the CF in a near peer environment (and like it or not, hot spots like Ukraine, Syria or the South China Sea are "Near Peer" environments), but will also have a very negative impact when applied to the mythical "Blue Beret" missions. How do you think a handful of CF service members deployed in destroyed states can leverage their small numbers and influence in that environment? (While the CF-35 itself would not be useful on a mythical Blue Beret mission, having skill and knowledge of network warfare, as well as other tools to employ it will).

 

[jollyjacktar]

I agree, if this comes to pass, we, in the navy are euchered.  http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1318027-rumoured-top-pick-for-defence-minister-could-be-bad-news-for-halifax

Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.

Rumoured top pick for defence minister could be bad news for Halifax

ANDREA GUNN Ottawa Bureau
Published October 21, 2015 - 10:46pm
Last Updated October 21, 2015 - 10:55pm

Measures that former lieutenant-general and Liberal MP-elect Andrew Leslie outlined in his report on military transformation would be suicide for the Canadian navy if implemented, experts say.

The 2011 report was commissioned through the Harper government and authored by Leslie, now rumoured to be a top pick to become Canada’s new defence minister. The report outlines several measures for the Canadian Forces to streamline operations and save money by slashing bloated military bureaucracy, giving Canada’s military “more teeth and less tail.”

Full implementation of the report’s measures is part of the Liberal defence platform, a promise prime minister-designate Justin Trudeau recommitted to at a Halifax campaign stop in September.

But Ken Hansen, a former navy officer and a maritime security analyst at Dalhousie University in Halifax, said enacting the changes would turn the Royal Canadian Navy into a token force.


The measure that raises the most concern for Hansen, who has written extensively on the subject, advocates that the navy hand over control of its maintenance, engineering support and logistics to a central organization in Ottawa.

He said this would result in the closure of two fleet maintenance facilities that provide all in-house repairs and support for naval equipment. The work would be contracted out to civilian outfits.

The Fleet Maintenance Facility Cape Scott in Halifax is the largest military industrial complex in Canada. Cape Scott employs 1,200 people and provides engineering and maintenance services for the 18 vessels in the Canadian navy’s Atlantic fleet. The other facility, Fleet Maintenance Facility Cape Breton, is in Esquimalt, B.C. The facilities are designed to do running repairs to keep ships operational and mitigate the need for a large retrofit contract.

“Leslie wants them gone,” Hansen said. “… He believes that they’re an unnecessary industrial expense that should be outside the defence portfolio. The navy’s history shows categorically that is not the case. Without them, the navy cannot function.”

Aside from a loss of hundreds of jobs in Halifax alone, Hansen said contracting out ship maintenance to a civilian company, as done in other branches of the Forces, would belabour the process for minor repairs to the point of rendering the navy ineffective.

“The fleet in this country is small. If you have to send a ship away for major repair and overhaul for what’s effectively a minor issue, then you’re losing a disproportionately large percentage of your operational capability. If you have to (contract out) to Irving, Irving would say, ‘Let’s talk terms. Let’s get a contract in place. Let’s get the lawyers in here.’ In a (fleet maintenance facility), you don’t need any of that.

“I’ve been on ships that went into the ship repair unit for a repair job, and within 48 hours, we were headed back out to port again.”

This loss of readily available ships would remove all real reliable capability from the Canadian navy, Hansen said.

Colin Darlington, a retired navy commander and vice-president of the Royal United Services Institute of Nova Scotia, shared Hansen’s concerns.

“The closure of fleet maintenance facilities would mean a significant change in the way the Royal Canadian Navy is currently structured and would result in a significant degradation of its ability to carry out missions and support foreign policy as Canada currently requires,” said Darlington. “One could even say we would become very much more on a short leash and a localized force.”

He said the function of these facilities is often drastically underappreciated by those outside the navy. Their closure would mean the loss of decades of expertise and the inability of the navy to effectively oversee the major repairs that are contracted out to civilian shipbuilding companies.

“When you do contract out (repairs), often it’s the expertise in FMF that allows for smart contracting in that we can specify what we want done and validate it’s been done correctly.”

It would also mean the effective end of Canada’s submarine program, Darlington said, because no civilian outfits in this country now have the ability to service subs.

Although Hansen said he thinks Leslie is a shoo-in for the defence minister position, he added that Leslie’s pull in the Liberal caucus will likely lead to the total implementation of his report, regardless of who gets the portfolio.

Hansen said the government will be dogmatic about pursuing the measures, because it likely views the document as a way to bring change to a military in dire need of reform while mostly usurping responsibility if something goes awry.

“They believe this will be safe because the report originates from within the military. … If there’s a blowback or a negative outcome, they can turn and point and say, ‘They recommended it.’”

Taking on the report in full could also have implications more far-reaching than just the maintenance facility closures. Hansen said Leslie’s “cold-war force structure” reflected in the document puts far too much importance on the army as Canada’s centre of power.

Threats in the Arctic and far-western Pacific will require a navy-heavy military, something Hansen said should be explored by the new government by releasing a white paper to outline the goals of its defence strategy.

“Cold-war force structure is (not) going to be useful in the new security era. It’s blatantly biased and small-minded.”

For his part, he did commend the Liberal promise to axe the F-35 procurement in favour of more affordable fighter jets and redirect the savings to the navy. In his victory speech Monday night, Leslie lauded the commitment and described Canada’s navy as being in a state of crisis.

Neither the federal Liberal party nor Leslie could be reached for comment by deadline

 

[Kirkhill]

DND - Canada's catspaw.

A 20 Billion Dollar Slush Fund where the government can hide funds in plain sight and find a spare billion or so any time it feels like it.

Its high profile diverts attention from the rest of the 300 Billion Dollars the government spends. 

It can use you and abuse you.

The money can be diverted to the environment, industrial support, bilingualism and biculturalism, healthcare (what else is SAR but an emergency ambulance service?) and all manner of social programs.  Occasionally it is used to further foreign relations.  And every now and then it is raided directly to fund Other Government Departments whose need is greater than yours.

Burning ammunition is an unnecessary waste of the Government's money.

Buttons and bows for all and saluting anvils to be issued.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

What forms my opinion:
- recently retired after 26 years in uniform
- overall specialized in Tactical systems
- bi-national planning group in CSprings
- surveillance officer at NATO AGSIO
- targeting staff officer at SHAPE  J2 ISTAR branch

I've said this before: in my opinion, if we want to do expeditionary air, then the only game in town is the F-35.

In Libya, we were a player, for reasons more than just the 6 pack.  Without the F-35 those reasons may not sustain.

Most European countries *are* falling behind.

Big caveat though: don't listen to the Air Forces of the world about the long term effectiveness of bombing campaigns alone.  They have almost always been tactical successes, operational washes, and strategic failures by themselves; ie without follow on action.  My opinion is that is happening against ISIS, backed up by credible sources.

So, I'll say it again: does the cost of expeditionary air make it worthwhile?  That is a question only the nation can answer, and the government represents the nation, for better or worse.

Can Canada stay in the "Network game" with it's Auroras or even a new non-fighter aircraft?

 

[FSTO]

I agree, if this comes to pass, we, in the navy are euchered.  http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1318027-rumoured-top-pick-for-defence-minister-could-be-bad-news-for-halifax

Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.

Wow, just F***ing wow. :facepalm:

 

[Jed]

DND - Canada's catspaw.

A 20 Billion Dollar Slush Fund where the government can hide funds in plain sight and find a spare billion or so any time it feels like it.

Its high profile diverts attention from the rest of the 300 Billion Dollars the government spends. 

It can use you and abuse you.

The money can be diverted to the environment, industrial support, bilingualism and biculturalism, healthcare (what else is SAR but an emergency ambulance service?) and all manner of social programs.  Occasionally it is used to further foreign relations.  And every now and then it is raided directly to fund Other Government Departments whose need is greater than yours.

Burning ammunition is an unnecessary waste of the Government's money.

Buttons and bows for all and saluting anvils to be issued.

:goodpost:

 

[GR66]

So, I'll say it again: does the cost of expeditionary air make it worthwhile?  That is a question only the nation can answer, and the government represents the nation, for better or worse.

The question is are the full and real costs and values being clearly communicated to the people in government making that decision?  If the only cost they are being presented is the price tag on a particular aircraft vs. a very general "capability" (i.e "we need a fighter jet to protect our airspace and drop bombs on bad guys when we need to"), then don't be surprised when the government chooses the cheapest option.

Who is standing up and telling the government decision makers that these are the specific capabilities we need and why they are important?  Even more critically, who is standing up and saying to them WAIT.  Don't make ANY decisions on what planes/ships/trucks/guns to buy until you provide us with a new Defence White Paper (and not just a shopping list like the CFDS...something that provides real expectations of what capabilities the government needs the CF to be able to provide the country). And make it clear to them what the costs and risks potentially result from their decisions.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I agree, if this comes to pass, we, in the navy are euchered.  http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1318027-rumoured-top-pick-for-defence-minister-could-be-bad-news-for-halifax

Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.

Completely agree with Jollyjacktar, and other critics of the Leslie Transformation report.

The single most important problem with that report IMHO is that Leslie wrote it singly from his narrow Army perspective, without any strategic understanding of the Canadian defence needs.

The national defence strategic perspective is that you build your defences from the inside out. In order of importance for Canada: (1) Defence of the National territory; (2) defence of the North-American Continent; (3) Fulfillment of our defence treaty obligations (Nato); and (4) Any other international commitment that we may see fit to undertake.

Now, wether we like it or not, (1) and (2) are Navy/Air Force dependant because Canada, and North-America, is an "Island" in terms of defence. Other than the Americans, nobody is coming over on foot or driving tanks/APCs. That means we must have a strong Navy and a Strong Air Force*. I am sorry to have to say this guys, but the Permanent Army of Canada is for the purposes of (3) and (4) only, which means it is expeditionary in nature, not a "defence" force primarily, the way continental European armies are, for instance. Leslie's report was trying to concentrate everything on supporting this Army function to the detriment of the other two - which for our own national defence needs would have been a disaster. Not surprisingly, his report was shelved.

* : I know that critics out there often harp on the fact that Canada's forces are "unbalanced" because we have a smaller Army than Air Force. But, in the Canadian context, I submit that this ought to be the case. First of all, only the Air Force can effect the surveillance and defence of our incredibly large and empty territory. Second of all, the most likely threat to this territory is from the air or from the sea. When it comes to the sea, today's navies (including Canada's) cannot operate without the support of the Air Force, again both in surveillance and strike modes. Finally, as our Army is expeditionary in nature, it needs the Air Force's strategic and tactical transport assistance, and in some cases its strike capability.When you add all that, you have a large Air Force, by necessity.

 

[FSTO]

Completely agree with Jollyjacktar, and other critics of the Leslie Transformation report.

The single most important problem with that report IMHO is that Leslie wrote it singly from his narrow Army perspective, without any strategic understanding of the Canadian defence needs.

The national defence strategic perspective is that you build your defences from the inside out. In order of importance for Canada: (1) Defence of the National territory; (2) defence of the North-American Continent; (3) Fulfillment of our defence treaty obligations (Nato); and (4) Any other international commitment that we may see fit to undertake.

Now, wether we like it or not, (1) and (2) are Navy/Air Force dependant because Canada, and North-America, is an "Island" in terms of defence. Other than the Americans, nobody is coming over on foot or driving tanks/APCs. That means we must have a strong Navy and a Strong Air Force*. I am sorry to have to say this guys, but the Permanent Army of Canada is for the purposes of (3) and (4) only, which means it is expeditionary in nature, not a "defence" force primarily, the way continental European armies are, for instance. Leslie's report was trying to concentrate everything on supporting this Army function to the detriment of the other two - which for our own national defence needs would have been a disaster. Not surprisingly, his report was shelved.

* : I know that critics out there often harp on the fact that Canada's forces are "unbalanced" because we have a smaller Army than Air Force. But, in the Canadian context, I submit that this ought to be the case. First of all, only the Air Force can effect the surveillance and defence of our incredibly large and empty territory. Second of all, the most likely threat to this territory is from the air or from the sea. When it comes to the sea, today's navies (including Canada's) cannot operate without the support of the Air Force, again both in surveillance and strike modes. Finally, as our Army is expeditionary in nature, it needs the Air Force's strategic and tactical transport assistance, and in some cases its strike capability.When you add all that, you have a large Air Force, by necessity.

:goodpost:

 

[The Bread Guy]

.... who is standing up and saying to them WAIT.  Don't make ANY decisions on what planes/ships/trucks/guns to buy until you provide us with a new Defence White Paper (and not just a shopping list like the CFDS...something that provides real expectations of what capabilities the government needs the CF to be able to provide the country). And make it clear to them what the costs and risks potentially result from their decisions.

Short answer:  nobody.

Gotta know what you want your military to do before figuring out how it's going to do it and what it needs to do it.  But that's just me, a fat old civilian fart talking ....

 

[Kirkhill]

Completely agree with Jollyjacktar, and other critics of the Leslie Transformation report.

The single most important problem with that report IMHO is that Leslie wrote it singly from his narrow Army perspective, without any strategic understanding of the Canadian defence needs.

The national defence strategic perspective is that you build your defences from the inside out. In order of importance for Canada: (1) Defence of the National territory; (2) defence of the North-American Continent; (3) Fulfillment of our defence treaty obligations (Nato); and (4) Any other international commitment that we may see fit to undertake.

Now, wether we like it or not, (1) and (2) are Navy/Air Force dependant because Canada, and North-America, is an "Island" in terms of defence. Other than the Americans, nobody is coming over on foot or driving tanks/APCs. That means we must have a strong Navy and a Strong Air Force*. I am sorry to have to say this guys, but the Permanent Army of Canada is for the purposes of (3) and (4) only, which means it is expeditionary in nature, not a "defence" force primarily, the way continental European armies are, for instance. Leslie's report was trying to concentrate everything on supporting this Army function to the detriment of the other two - which for our own national defence needs would have been a disaster. Not surprisingly, his report was shelved.

* : I know that critics out there often harp on the fact that Canada's forces are "unbalanced" because we have a smaller Army than Air Force. But, in the Canadian context, I submit that this ought to be the case. First of all, only the Air Force can effect the surveillance and defence of our incredibly large and empty territory. Second of all, the most likely threat to this territory is from the air or from the sea. When it comes to the sea, today's navies (including Canada's) cannot operate without the support of the Air Force, again both in surveillance and strike modes. Finally, as our Army is expeditionary in nature, it needs the Air Force's strategic and tactical transport assistance, and in some cases its strike capability.When you add all that, you have a large Air Force, by necessity.

It doesn't happen often OGBD - but I can't agree with you more.  Emphasis added.

Edit - with this note:  The Army as it is constructed.  The Army that meets the requirements of Lines 1 and 2 is Light, Dispersable and Adaptive - and still intimately tied to the Air Force.

 

[a_majoor]

Can Canada stay in the "Network game" with it's Auroras or even a new non-fighter aircraft?

While it is possible to do so in something like an Aurora, due to the amount of room inside, consider why the USAF is so desperate for the F-35: centralized network nodes like the AWACS are extremely vulnerable. A shoot down would be a disaster, but even a simple failure of electronics would cripple the entire system. A "mesh network" of distributed nodes (which is what a squadron of F-35's actually is, the routers are packaged inside supersonic jets) can cover a larger area, has fewer single point of failure nodes and can gracefully degrade as planes are lost, damaged or suffer electronic or mechanical breakdowns.

Having high performance aircraft as the nodes also gives much more flexibility; imagine a USAF strike package in 2025: there will be dozens of UCAV's carrying munitions and countermeasures with some F-35's hidden somewhere in the flock. Even if the enemy were to somehow burn through the layers of UCAV's, there are still full on jet fighters waiting inside capable of fighting and carrying on the mission on their own. A repurposed C-130 or Challenger full of electronics will not have these capabilities (and it is questionable they would have the performance to keep up with the UCAV flock anyway).

Much like the EH 101 debacle of the 1990's, the CF will lose or never gain critical capabilities that will be employed for decades to come in the pursuit of very short term partisan advantage. This analysis also does not include the industrial or political benefits of having a high tech aerospace industry making cutting edge equipment or being able to back words with actions in the international arena.

 

[Altair]

While it is possible to do so in something like an Aurora, due to the amount of room inside, consider why the USAF is so desperate for the F-35: centralized network nodes like the AWACS are extremely vulnerable. A shoot down would be a disaster, but even a simple failure of electronics would cripple the entire system. A "mesh network" of distributed nodes (which is what a squadron of F-35's actually is, the routers are packaged inside supersonic jets) can cover a larger area, has fewer single point of failure nodes and can gracefully degrade as planes are lost, damaged or suffer electronic or mechanical breakdowns.

Having high performance aircraft as the nodes also gives much more flexibility; imagine a USAF strike package in 2025: there will be dozens of UCAV's carrying munitions and countermeasures with some F-35's hidden somewhere in the flock. Even if the enemy were to somehow burn through the layers of UCAV's, there are still full on jet fighters waiting inside capable of fighting and carrying on the mission on their own. A repurposed C-130 or Challenger full of electronics will not have these capabilities (and it is questionable they would have the performance to keep up with the UCAV flock anyway).

Much like the EH 101 debacle of the 1990's, the CF will lose or never gain critical capabilities that will be employed for decades to come in the pursuit of very short term partisan advantage. This analysis also does not include the industrial or political benefits of having a high tech aerospace industry making cutting edge equipment or being able to back words with actions in the international arena.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, you are in fact very informative and you're doing a great job explaining the complexity of this to this simple green guy.

However,  with the way you are describing the F35 reminds me of how it was selected in the first place. The list of criteria that you seem to be talking about only seem to be contained in one plane.

It seem to me that it's unlikely that there isn't at least one suitable alternative to this aircraft,no? None that come even close to offering what you're talking about in the F35?  I'm no SME, naturally, but to my knowledge Europe is no technological laggard, their jets should have some sort of redeeming factors, no?

 

[OldSolduer]

Short answer:  nobody.

Gotta know what you want your military to do before figuring out how it's going to do it and what it needs to do it.  But that's just me, a fat old civilian fart talking ....

We've lost our way. No one is giving us direction, and when that happens, people will make up their own direction, whether or not it's good for the country or CAF.