Young KH said:
How I suppose that this is going to brown a bunch of the guys off but I for one have no idea why Canada would need a SUB in the first place.
Young KH said:
All I meant about the subs was that Canada would have been better off buying one NEW Nuclear Sub then three old used and lets be honest here pieces of junk from Britain.
Young KH said:
you are not going to convince me that we need the subs.
Young KH said:
if we don't have the money to buy good stuff why are we spending it on useless stuff.
Young KH said:
Fire Engines, If we live in a small town that can't afford to buy fire equipment, we don't. You lose some houses maybe or make an agreement with a neighbouring town or pool the resources of 5 or 6 comunities to fight fires. But to buy a (or 4) nice big Fire Engine just like the big City, only to have snow removal, road repair and so on fall by the way side is dumb. Most small towns have those smarts, why doesn't Canada.
Your position seems to be all over the place here. Our military has no use for submarines, but we should have procured a nuclear submarine? I think your allusion to buying useless â Å“stuffâ ? because we don't have money for â Å“good stuffâ Å“ is off base. It might be better to say that we bought the small town fire trucks instead of the one big-city fire truck that could not be deployed on both coasts at the same time (or spell itself off in dry docks).
Young KH said:
I am not proposing any cuts to anyone.
Then why take opposition to the subs?
Young KH said:
we would also need to beef up the Coast Guard with both equipment and numbers, allowing the Navy and Air force to handle their Military commitments.
Young KH said:
Coast Guard to be increased to the point where they can take over coastal watch/ Air and sea rescue.
See the
National Security board. This has been agreed with and gone into in greater detail.
Young KH said:
We are good at Peace keeping / making and should continue to do that well.
That implies we must be excellent war-fighters first.
Young KH said:
we are at this time Peace keepers and so that is where the money should be spent.
This statement is incredibly wrong, and the fact that people believe it has led to half of what is wrong in the CF.
See here for more.
Young KH said:
No. We are in a war.
Young KH said:
Fact remains that we are on a UN action.
No. We are not â Å“on a UN action.â ? We are participating in separate NATO and US operations in Afghanistan.
Young KH said:
All I meant about the subs was that Canada would have been better off buying one NEW Nuclear Sub then three old used and lets be honest here pieces of junk from Britain.
As for Navy warfair, I admit that I don't know a thing and don't pretend to, but I do know about spreading yourselves too thin and that is what Canada does, all the time.
So, you claim we should have perused one maritime COA, and in your next sentence claim to be unqualified to have reached that conclusion? What value are solutions if you don't have the facts to determine that a problem exists (or what the problem is)?
Young KH said:
But to set all of you to tasks I have mentioned that my knowledge is at best TV News and can only draw from my time in the Army witch was more then a few years ago. All the information in the world will not make me think that it was a good idea to get out of tanks or to cut the ground troops back to where they sit now. So all the giving me heck for lack of fact is great but meaningless if all you have is fact and no suggestions. Or am I wrong in thinking that no one can dispute that the numbers of Infantry are too low for the tasks at hand.
Suggestions not derived from facts are useless and inapplicable to reality. Everything you present is meaningless if all you have is suggestions and no facts.
Young KH said:
Navy to have Transport capacity for troops and equipment.
Airforce to have Transport planes for troops and equipment.
What should each element be able to move? Should the Navy be able to move a BG or a CMBG? Should the Air Force be capable of moving a Coy Gp or a Bn Gp? I tend to agree that we need the strategic lift capability, but the Air Force and Navy also need the ability to provide coordinated fire & other effects based support to land operations.
Young KH said:
We need Grunts, foot soldiers and sooner the better. They will need training and I don't mean War training, I mean Police training, the type used for what is coming.
No. We need soldiers trained for warfighting & police trained for policing.
Young KH said:
Fact is the Ground troops are the ones that are needed at this time and to send them into any posting with anything but the best of equipment in getting very close to murder. We don't have enough ground troops to be safe at any postings. I am talking Infantry , armored and artillery and their support. They are at this time over worked and have very little time left for training or advancement, let alone a personal life.
Young KH said:
But most of all we need more Ground troops (Infantry), foot sloggers, the one with the rifle on his shoulder and mostly the one on the ground that needs to have better equipment to help him do his job. ...
I feel and this is only my opinion, that Canada needs 20,000 infantry to do the job that it is being asked to do today and even that might be pushing it ...
The problems as I see them are that we have simply cut the Army back too far,
Young KH said:
Infantry to increase to pre 1960 numbers. Support to increase as needed
How have you determined that these are the numbers we need? I agree we could use more infantry, but how have you come to this magic number?
Young KH said:
Is there no one out there that would like the Infantry Batallions filled with a full complament of men who are properly trained, equipped and supported?
I would hazard a guess that most of us would like to see all units manned at 100% to 110%. Based on this, it becomes a lot easier to say that Canada needs 12 fully manned combined arms manoeuvre battalions (as opposed to calling for 20,000 infanteers without any vision for their groupings). With this we could sustain 2 x BGs indefinitely on 6 month rotations. The manoeuvre battalions require 3 â “ 4 rifle companies, a surveillance squadron, a DFS squadron, and a cbt sp coy.
. . . but then, all these ideas are already out on the boards. Try reading some of the threads in the
Combat Arms board for some well thought out suggestions (suggestions that provide solutions to real problems/deficiencies as opposed to solutions in need of problems).
