Cute
. I still like the mini-Marine Corps idea:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/94715/post-945610.html#msg945610
My quick thoughts. I think the Air Force should give up its fighter-bombing role since we're almost never likely to use it and concentrate on supporting the Army with transport and helicopters--since the Army is the key service Canadian governments have used, and seem likely to keep using, as a foreign policy instrument. Others can supply the CAS as in Afstan.
Plus maritime surveillance--air SAR might well be privatized.
Though how one would recruit pilots for the much smaller number of fighters necessary for surveillance and interdiction for Canadian territory would be a major problem--unless the Bears and any successor really do re-emerge as a threat.
In other words, it seems to me the CF should aim at being a mini-Marine Corps in terms of overseas service, with the extra resources needed for surveillance and defence of Canadian territory and waters.
More broadly. Money, equipments and personnel for the military are important. What is more important is what a country expects the military to be prepared to do with that money, equipments and personnel. That is what this government is unwilling to try to specify.
Note the proportion of money devoted to maintaining a blue water Navy, as opposed to one focused on coastal defence and sovereignty protection. Why does our Navy need to be engaged in the Arabian Sea interdicting rum-runners? Or hash smugglers?
The answer: jobs building and repairing ships in Canada, and the hoped-for attendant votes. Western countries have a surplus of frigates/destroyers for any likely multilateral blue water operations requiring such vessels. Canadian ones are not essential for the West as a whole; we are exceedingly unlikely to operate on the blue waters on our own.
Then there's the Air Force. Does Canada really require fighters with top-end aerial combat abilities (as opposed to interception and patrol in defence of Canada and North America) and ground-attack capabilities?
Trying to maintain "combat-capable, flexible, multi-role" Canadian Forces for all three services is, to my mind, simply impossible for those services all to be effective and efficient, given the limited funding that our governments (both stripes) are willing to provide.
So a true "defence strategy" would attempt to:
1) Outline how the government thinks the CF should be employed for national, and then international, purposes;
2) Outline what mix of service capabilities are required to fulfill those roles.
But that would require serious decisions with political and service consequences this government is not willing to make--nor are, I am sure, most Canadians. Will any Canadian government ever be so ready?
And how about a civilian maritime patrol aircraft fleet? Transport Canada already does aerial marine pollution detection (using Bombardiers, buy more for political points),
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/oep-ers-nasp-2195.htm
and Provincial Airlines does it for DFO.
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/international/media/bk_air-surveillance-aerien-eng.htm
Transport Canada could well operate such a fleet (despite their effort to become mainly a non-operational agency) on behalf of Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Coast Guard, Environment Canada, CBSA/RCMP, CF as required, and others.
The Air Force would then presumably need fewer maritime patrol planes (whether Auroras or replacement) that would concentrate on military missions such as ASW and armed interdiction.
Get mad at me--but get mad at our governments (and the services) first for not being willing, or able, to think honestly.
Mark
Ottawa
