The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)

[Lightguns]

No - it was contextual.

Afghanistan was a specific case, a relatively benign tactical situation with an environment not conducive to less-powerful utility helicopters.

A future conflict could well see us back in a more conventional situation, wherein MTH will not be as survivable in close proximity to a more numerous and more heavily-armed enemy. Griffon will not be able to provide an armed capability in a colder climate.

We were very lucky not to lose a Chinook-full of thirty-plus people all in one go. A loss of one UH with eleven aboard is tough enough, but one-third less so. Aside from the tragedy itself, it could also destroy public and political will and support.

We have a need for a true AH, and a UH with greater lift capability than Griffon, if we are to remain relevant.

WRT AH, how administered, a full Sqn or a Flt per Sqn? 

 

[Loachman]

Out of my lane here, but Griffons not able to provide an armed capability in colder climate?

Last I checked, they operated from Valcartier and Edmonton. I could be wrong but those sound like friggin cold places in winter.  :cold:

Again, the cabin doors have to be fully open and pinned for door gunnery. We lack sufficient FEs and door gunners as it is, without having to replace all of the ones frozen to death - wind chill is a bitch at 80-100 knots.

 

[Loachman]

WRT AH, how administered, a full Sqn or a Flt per Sqn?

Our Cold War doctrine had a Tac Hel Wing at Div level (equivalent to the US Aviation Brigade at Div level), with one LOH Squadron (sixteen Kiowas in two flights of eight), one UTTH Squadron (twenty-four Twin Hueys in two flights of twelve), one AH Squadron (twenty-one in three flights of seven), and a Maint Squadron. This was in addition to a LOH Squadron (sixteen Kiowas in two flights of eight) with each subordinate Brigade.

In a conventional setting, AH are treated (in the US model) as a manoeuvre arm, used to block or counter-attack en masse, similar to an Armoured force. Between that, and the simpler logistics of operating one type of helicopter per unit, single-type Squadrons are better. Groupings can always occur for specific ops, ie airmobiles.

 

[Good2Golf]

No - it was contextual.

Afghanistan was a specific case, a relatively benign tactical situation with an environment not conducive to less-powerful utility helicopters.

A future conflict could well see us back in a more conventional situation, wherein MTH will not be as survivable in close proximity to a more numerous and more heavily-armed enemy. Griffon will not be able to provide an armed capability in a colder climate.

We were very lucky not to lose a Chinook-full of thirty-plus people all in one go. A loss of one UH with eleven aboard is tough enough, but one-third less so. Aside from the tragedy itself, it could also destroy public and political will and support.

We have a need for a true AH, and a UH with greater lift capability than Griffon, if we are to remain relevant.

Again with respect, it was more than 'contextual' if by 'contextual' you intend to imply things would not happen like that again, but rather be considered, as a starting-point, within the framework of pre-90's Cold War doctrine.

Your personal opinion aside, there is a reason the Government invested significant resources to secure the types of capabilities it did in the CH-147F, and things like AN/AAQ-24(V) DIRCM were not invested in because the turret blanking plates are a cool discussion topic at Canadian air shows.

Would the loss of 30+ pers in the CH-147D shoot down have had a significant impact?  Yes.  What about a CC-130J or a CC-177?  Yes and yes.  Are you saying the loss of 11+/- in a UH would be 30/11's more acceptable as a means of reinforcing your opinion that only a UH doctrinally does dangerous airmobile?

Your follow-up comment to my first comment regarding the old-fashioned linear nature that might have 'relegated' original CH-147's back in the CAA or DAA pays little consideration to how such engagement has been, and is considered currently.  How do you rationalize that your less than favourite helicopter has not only been deployed to Irag, but extended and a new Squadron rotation taken over from the first rotation?  Not without some limitations.  Cold with doors open?  Yes, but not to a degree that a nation (Canada) would likely say, "Brrrr, that's too cold for us to send Griffons there..." or the like.

I offer you these convenient quote headers for your future posts:

[COLD WAR, LINEAR, CONTIGUOUS BATTLESPACE APPROVED] .... [/COLD WAR, LINEAR, CONTIGUOUS BATTLESPACE APPROVED]


Regards
G2G

 

[daftandbarmy]

Again, the cabin doors have to be fully open and pinned for door gunnery. We lack sufficient FEs and door gunners as it is, without having to replace all of the ones frozen to death - wind chill is a ***** at 80-100 knots.

Luckily, we will never 'do peacekeeping' in a place that isn't warm, so our flight crews will be fine, thanks mainly to the fact that the earth's colder regions produce massive, first world armies that resolve their differences in the traditional fashion up to and including Global Thermonuclear War resulting in millions of casualties (which is why keeping the peace between these characters, while preparing for that kind of war, has to be our #1 priority and not dicking around in Kaffiristan).

 

[Kirkhill]

Luckily, we will never 'do peacekeeping' in a place that isn't warm, so our flight crews will be fine, thanks mainly to the fact that the earth's colder regions produce massive, first world armies that resolve their differences in the traditional fashion up to and including Global Thermonuclear War resulting in millions of casualties (which is why keeping the peace between these characters, while preparing for that kind of war, has to be our #1 priority and not dicking around in Kaffiristan).

On the plus side Global Thermonuclear War has its benefits:

It warms up those colder regions.

It reduces the size of those massive, first world armies.

The loss of millions of casualties makes it easier for the survivors to live like those good folks in Kaffiristan.

Don't be so quick to judge.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Interesting -- shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act ...

Nearly 70 per cent of Canadians support deploying Canadian Forces on UN peacekeeping missions in active fighting areas, a poll conducted for CTV News has found.

The Nanos Research survey also found that nearly 80 per cent of Canadians either think that participating in UN peacekeeping missions is a very good (37 per cent) or good (37 per cent) use of Canadian Forces personnel and equipment. Only six per cent of Canadians think it’s a poor use of personnel and equipment, while four per cent think it’s a very poor use.

In August, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau committed to deploying 600 Canadian troops on UN peacekeeping missions, but wouldn’t say where they would be going. Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan visited the United Nations on Thursday and met with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, and possible Canadian peacekeeping missions were under discussion.

The survey found that seven in 10 Canadians support (30 per cent) and somewhat support (39 per cent) deploying Canadian Forces to active fighting areas. Alternatively, 14 per cent somewhat oppose while 13 per cent oppose the idea.

More than three in four Canadians support (48 per cent) or somewhat support (30 per cent) Canadian peacekeepers being allowed to shoot first when feeling threatened, with 11 per cent somewhat opposed and 6 per cent opposed.

More people in the Atlantic provinces supported the idea than in other parts of the country:

    Atlantic: 85 per cent support/somewhat support
    Quebec: 68 per cent support/somewhat support
    Ontario: 80 per cent support/somewhat support
    Prairies: 79 per cent support/somewhat support
    British Columbia: 80 per cent support/somewhat support

One possible Canadian mission, supported by France, would be a deployment to Mali, where al-Qaeda-linked groups are becoming difficult to control. Another mission possibility would be to the Central African Republic, a politically unstable nation with multiple militia groups.

A majority of Canadians were also found to support (42 per cent) or somewhat support (37 per cent) making it a priority for Canada to have a seat on the UN Security Council. Eleven per cent somewhat oppose and six per cent oppose making it a priority.

Canadians are also overwhelmingly in favour (78 per cent) of having flexible end dates to peacekeeping missions, based on mission status, while 15 per cent think missions should have a firm end date.

Methodology

The national dual-frame (land and cell) hybrid telephone and online survey of 1,000 people was conducted between Sept. 24 and 27th, 2016. The margin of error for a survey of 1,000 respondents is ±3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

 

[Kirkhill]

Interesting -- shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act ...

Other questions:

Are they prepared to allow troops to fire first, without "feeling threatened", in support of their mission?
Are they prepared to allow the government to pick a side and have the troops act accordingly?
Are they prepared to fund an adequately manned and equipped force?
Are they prepared to support the injured and the dead?

 

[The Bread Guy]

Other questions:

Are they prepared to allow troops to fire first, without "feeling threatened", in support of their mission?
Are they prepared to allow the government to pick a side and have the troops act accordingly?
Are they prepared to fund an adequately manned and equipped force?
Are they prepared to support the injured and the dead?

All VERY good questions -- the Nanos site doesn't have the details up as of this post.

As for survey respondents & "active fighting areas" ...

 

[ueo]

As long as they're painted white with a big black UN emblazoned. Ordinance is another matter- who supplies and resupplies? What type etc. etc.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

"[d]eploying Canadian Forces on UN peacekeeping missions in active fighting areas"

Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

 

[OldSolduer]

I think Canadians need to know that this is not a Cyprus type operation. This is fraught with dangers we may not even have thought of.
Will the PM do the first NOK notification when one of ours is killed? Will the public accept the deaths of our troops for a mission in a place most Canadians can't find on a map?

I can hear the wailing " but its peacekeeping " by the tea and cookie crowd when one of ours uses deadly force to stop an atrocity.

 

[mariomike]

I can hear the wailing " but its peacekeeping " by the tea and cookie crowd when one of ours uses deadly force to stop an atrocity.

I can imagine BLM doing more than wail if they see, or hear of, "ours" swatting one of "theirs" with even a rolled up newspaper. 

If what we see here on the Homefront is any indication.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I can hear the wailing " but its peacekeeping " by the tea and cookie crowd when one of ours uses deadly force to stop an atrocity.

If that happens, the Liberals will have to have the PM do something ''awesome" to grab all the headlines!  ;D

 

[jollyjacktar]

If that happens, the Liberals will have to have the PM do something ''awesome" to grab all the headlines!  ;D

Hell yeah, that will balance the budget, stop global warming and no doubt bring peace in the Middle East too boot.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Stop thinking...just look at the pictures!!  :nod:

 

[The Bread Guy]

I can hear the wailing " but its peacekeeping " by the tea and cookie crowd when one of ours uses deadly force to stop an atrocity.

Maybe, but even Prince Valiant's Info-machine and political "child soldiers" should be able to build a narrative around an atrocity being prevented - one hopes, anyway.

 

[x-grunt]

Maybe, but even Prince Valiant's Info-machine and political "child soldiers" should be able to build a narrative around an atrocity being prevented - one hopes, anyway.

One hopes, but remember what those who govern did with the Medak situation back in '93. Even the UN went against the grain and gave the CF props for that one. I always thought that was a golden PR opportunity for the Government of the day, a potential morale boost for the CF  and something that the public could get behind if reported properly.
But nope. None of the above.

 

[Kirkhill]

....remember what those who govern did with the Medak situation back in '93. ..... something that the public could get behind if reported properly.
....

That would be a sub-optimal outcome. People might become accustomed to the soldiery.

 

[OldSolduer]

Medak was not covered for a variety of reasons IMO. One was the government and CF were dealing with the Somalia fallout. Now we have UN peacekeepers getting in gunfights with a foreign army. That would have not played well with the "tea and biscuit " crowd.