Re: the on-going equipment procurement debate

[army]

Posted by GUYBERUBE@AOL.COM on Tue, 29 Feb 2000 20:14:58 EST
I‘ve spent the better part of a half hour here, following the debate over
Canadian arms and equipment procurement policy. It‘s been really interesting.
But please remember that an army is supposed to be built to combat likely
threats to the nation in the near- to medium-term future. There are no likely
situations in which the Canadian Armed Forces will have to fight a heavy
armored threat force either on this continent or anywhere else in the
foreseeable future. The fall of the Warsaw Pact settled that. The US, the
Brit‘s and the French can fight a major war far better than we can, simply
because they have the population size and the economies to match.
It seems to me that most of Canada‘s future military roles on the ground will
involve peacekeeping a la Kosovo, Bosnia, etc., defense of the coast from
unfriendly incursions, and supporting the civil power. So having good light
infantry, mobile artillery, light-to-medium armor, good tactical airlift
i.e., helicopters and C-130‘s, and an adequate air- and sea-lift capacity
are the ways to go. Let‘s not spend a fortune on M-1‘s and Apache‘s when the
Leopard I and the lighter vehicles can meet these combat roles. Rather, let‘s
recruit more men and women for infantry, art‘y and armor.
Canada has some of the best troops in the world, easily a match for any the
US can field, but there are too few of them. Let‘s correct that.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.

 

[army]

Posted by "william durrant" <gunner10@sprint.ca> on Tue, 29 Feb 2000 20:33:04 -0500
Amen...!
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: the on-going equipment procurement debate
> I‘ve spent the better part of a half hour here, following the debate over
> Canadian arms and equipment procurement policy. It‘s been really
interesting.
> But please remember that an army is supposed to be built to combat likely
> threats to the nation in the near- to medium-term future. There are no
likely
> situations in which the Canadian Armed Forces will have to fight a heavy
> armored threat force either on this continent or anywhere else in the
> foreseeable future. The fall of the Warsaw Pact settled that. The US, the
> Brit‘s and the French can fight a major war far better than we can, simply
> because they have the population size and the economies to match.
>
> It seems to me that most of Canada‘s future military roles on the ground
will
> involve peacekeeping a la Kosovo, Bosnia, etc., defense of the coast
from
> unfriendly incursions, and supporting the civil power. So having good
light
> infantry, mobile artillery, light-to-medium armor, good tactical airlift
> i.e., helicopters and C-130‘s, and an adequate air- and sea-lift
capacity
> are the ways to go. Let‘s not spend a fortune on M-1‘s and Apache‘s when
the
> Leopard I and the lighter vehicles can meet these combat roles. Rather,
let‘s
> recruit more men and women for infantry, art‘y and armor.
>
> Canada has some of the best troops in the world, easily a match for any
the
> US can field, but there are too few of them. Let‘s correct that.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
>
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.

 

[army]

Posted by "Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com> on Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:05:38 -0800
>But please remember that an army is supposed to be built to combat likely
threats to the nation in the near- to medium-term future. There are no likely
situations in which the Canadian Armed Forces will have to fight a heavy armored
threat force either on this continent or anywhere else in the foreseeable
future.
What exactly is the time span of "near- to medium-term", or "foreseeable
future"? It must be measured in hours, if one considers the spin-up time for
WWI, WWII, and Korea. For that matter, how "likely" were the first and third of
those events or the Gulf War, say, one week before the participants found
themselves in a state of war? While Canada had ample time before which it was
necessary to become directly involved in all those conflicts, there was no
expectation on the part of our allies that we would commit trained formations in
the first few days. What happens if that expectation becomes the price of
membership in any particular alliance or common defence relationship? If we
think it will take 6 months to adequately prepare and deploy a brigade group for
any level of warfighting, perhaps we need to determine if any significant number
of conflicts in the past century gave 6 months notice to move before we even
bother attempting to retain combat capability outside the staff colleges.
Herein lies a political problem. The US, for example, is developing capability
to fight the "come-as-you-are" war to achieve a decision early. To an extent,
our navy and air force can participate meaningfully in cooperative defence of
Canada and the US as well as abroad. But what exactly do our land forces
contribute? I think peacekeeping is valuable - if getting there "firstest with
the mostest" is important for a shooting war, then presumably preventing the
shooting war from breaking out in the first place is worthwhile. Peacemaking
likewise has a place, although I consider us under-equipped to do a proper job
at this time. Either we need the ability to commit something early to a true
fight, or we must convince our allies politically that peacekeeping is a
sufficient contribution.
>simply because they have the population size and the economies to match.
We have the population and economy we simply choose to spend money differently.
We in fact enjoy national security at very little cost compared to many nations.
>So having good light infantry, mobile artillery, light-to-medium armor, good
tactical airlift
i.e., helicopters and C-130‘s, and an adequate air- and sea-lift capacity are
the ways to go.
I don‘t think most people are obsessed with tanks or attack helicopters. But we
seem to have very little intention to properly field most of the other items
listed.
It would be interesting to do an audit to establish how much of 300-odd million
dollars actually ends up in equipment, soldiers, and training budgets for field
units.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.

 

[army]

Posted by "John Gilmour" <jgilmour@atsrecruitment.com> on Thu, 2 Mar 2000 15:07:36 -0500
I totally agree !
-----Original Message-----
From: GUYBERUBE@AOL.COM
To: army@cipherlogic.on.ca
Date: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: the on-going equipment procurement debate
>I‘ve spent the better part of a half hour here, following the debate over
>Canadian arms and equipment procurement policy. It‘s been really
interesting.
>But please remember that an army is supposed to be built to combat likely
>threats to the nation in the near- to medium-term future. There are no
likely
>situations in which the Canadian Armed Forces will have to fight a heavy
>armored threat force either on this continent or anywhere else in the
>foreseeable future. The fall of the Warsaw Pact settled that. The US, the
>Brit‘s and the French can fight a major war far better than we can, simply
>because they have the population size and the economies to match.
>
>It seems to me that most of Canada‘s future military roles on the ground
will
>involve peacekeeping a la Kosovo, Bosnia, etc., defense of the coast from
>unfriendly incursions, and supporting the civil power. So having good light
>infantry, mobile artillery, light-to-medium armor, good tactical airlift
>i.e., helicopters and C-130‘s, and an adequate air- and sea-lift capacity
>are the ways to go. Let‘s not spend a fortune on M-1‘s and Apache‘s when
the
>Leopard I and the lighter vehicles can meet these combat roles. Rather,
let‘s
>recruit more men and women for infantry, art‘y and armor.
>
>Canada has some of the best troops in the world, easily a match for any the
>US can field, but there are too few of them. Let‘s correct that.
>--------------------------------------------------------
>NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
>to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
>to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
>message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.