The General Hillier Years. The Merged Superthread
- Thread starter bossi
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Says who? I wonder if you are familiar with our past and present NATO rapid reaction committments such as ACE, NCF and NRF, our SHIRBRIG committment, our own NEO comittment, or our ongoing support for UN ops? All of these have required us, or require us now, to be capable of rapid deployment. Our problem is not that we are not in the rapid deployment business: we are, and we have been for years. The problem is that we are in the business without owning the means to do it, so we are playing a false game with ourselves and our allies if we cannot borrow the airlift in a hurry. Sea-lift is already on the cards and has been for a while ($$$) but it doesn't replace airmobility: it augments it and sustains it.
Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
OK-I found the article. It appeared in the Jan/Feb 2005 issue of "Frontline" magazine, a Canadian defence and security issues publication. The article is on pp 6-12 and is based on an interview with Gen Hillier when he was still CLS. A few choice quotes:
"It all comes down to the Three Block War...the important part is that you are doing all three simultaneously..."
" When you are doing just the fighting portion of command, it is easy to show a friendly force as an arrow on a map moving to the middle of an enemy concentration painted in red. You can see it clearly taking place and it helps you get an understanding of the situation so that you can make accurate decisions that will help ensure success. But when you are in the middle of that centre of population, and you are living among friendly people, but you are also living among people who are trying to kill you and trying to ensure that you are not successful in bringing stability, it is much more difficult that in a digitized command format that can help you understand the situation and make those intelligent decisions"
"Priority number one for me-crystallized after Afghanistan-is tactical airlift...We know we have a challenge with our C-130 fleet...there is clearly an overwhelming requirement for heavy lift in theatre...what we need truly is a heavy lift aviation capability to project power inside the theatre and move it around...you cannot always depend on your allies or coalition partners to bring that capability-or for it to be available when you need it...light helicopters don't meet the requirement..."
"We have to be prepared to face down, deter and deal with whomever we encounter when we arrive-from militia forces to terrorist groups or sucide bombers."
"Canada's contributions (to international ops) are not always focused geographically or functionally, and as a result, our contributions do not always get the profile we deserve, and as a result of that, the credibility, and as a result of that, the opportunity to influence those missions the way we should"
and, finally (and IMHO the most to the point):
"Our committment is to be relevant to what Canadians want,and we are going to be capable on the ground and have what our soldiers need when a condition is set for them. There's a connection here that Canadians have gotten away with ignoring far too long. And that is the fact that these are not my soldiers, they are Canadian soldiers, and they are the sons and daughters of Canadians, the husbands and wives, mothers and fathers in fact, the're neighbours, they're friends or just someone they met down the street. Canadians have to start taking a direct interest in those soldiers who become their credentials around the world. We ask them to do a lot, and we ask them to do it in very dangerous situations. And those young men and women, who are representing us while walking those dirty, dangerous streets, have to be certain that every single Canadian is walking with them.
Figuratively, that has not been occurring, the soldiers don't feel valued, don't feel they are being perceived as a national resource, a national treasure, and in my opinion that's exactly what they are, and they've proven it time and again.
Canadians need to take ownership, these are your soldiers, they are tremendous credentials and the rest of the population of Canada needs to recognize that"
I've spent much of my career being pretty skeptical about alot of things, especially some of our most senior types. However, IMHO the words of the CLS/CDS should be on the front page of every newspaper in Canada. True that they are only words: but words that I don't recall hearing before, and certainly not from anyone who got to be CDS.
Good luck Gen Hillier. Give 'em hell.
Cheers
"It all comes down to the Three Block War...the important part is that you are doing all three simultaneously..."
" When you are doing just the fighting portion of command, it is easy to show a friendly force as an arrow on a map moving to the middle of an enemy concentration painted in red. You can see it clearly taking place and it helps you get an understanding of the situation so that you can make accurate decisions that will help ensure success. But when you are in the middle of that centre of population, and you are living among friendly people, but you are also living among people who are trying to kill you and trying to ensure that you are not successful in bringing stability, it is much more difficult that in a digitized command format that can help you understand the situation and make those intelligent decisions"
"Priority number one for me-crystallized after Afghanistan-is tactical airlift...We know we have a challenge with our C-130 fleet...there is clearly an overwhelming requirement for heavy lift in theatre...what we need truly is a heavy lift aviation capability to project power inside the theatre and move it around...you cannot always depend on your allies or coalition partners to bring that capability-or for it to be available when you need it...light helicopters don't meet the requirement..."
"We have to be prepared to face down, deter and deal with whomever we encounter when we arrive-from militia forces to terrorist groups or sucide bombers."
"Canada's contributions (to international ops) are not always focused geographically or functionally, and as a result, our contributions do not always get the profile we deserve, and as a result of that, the credibility, and as a result of that, the opportunity to influence those missions the way we should"
and, finally (and IMHO the most to the point):
"Our committment is to be relevant to what Canadians want,and we are going to be capable on the ground and have what our soldiers need when a condition is set for them. There's a connection here that Canadians have gotten away with ignoring far too long. And that is the fact that these are not my soldiers, they are Canadian soldiers, and they are the sons and daughters of Canadians, the husbands and wives, mothers and fathers in fact, the're neighbours, they're friends or just someone they met down the street. Canadians have to start taking a direct interest in those soldiers who become their credentials around the world. We ask them to do a lot, and we ask them to do it in very dangerous situations. And those young men and women, who are representing us while walking those dirty, dangerous streets, have to be certain that every single Canadian is walking with them.
Figuratively, that has not been occurring, the soldiers don't feel valued, don't feel they are being perceived as a national resource, a national treasure, and in my opinion that's exactly what they are, and they've proven it time and again.
Canadians need to take ownership, these are your soldiers, they are tremendous credentials and the rest of the population of Canada needs to recognize that"
I've spent much of my career being pretty skeptical about alot of things, especially some of our most senior types. However, IMHO the words of the CLS/CDS should be on the front page of every newspaper in Canada. True that they are only words: but words that I don't recall hearing before, and certainly not from anyone who got to be CDS.
Good luck Gen Hillier. Give 'em hell.
Cheers
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
"...you cannot always depend on your allies or coalition partners to bring that capability-or for it to be available when you need it"
I agree with this statement but would like to think it would include armour as well.
I agree with this statement but would like to think it would include armour as well.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
I am sure it would, but i also don't see that happening for a while especially if we go to the MGS system. But like i said earlier in the thread armour could be bought at a later date, as there is not all that much to it. (Yes i know that is not really true but when you consider it would armour already made as opposed to helicopters and planes and ships that will take years to come into service) As we would prob buy something our allies are using already such as the M1A2 or something the Brits have or even (god help me) the Leclerc.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
Wizard of OZ said:
I know it would be politically tough after the difficulty with the Victorias, but I don't know how we couldn't get in line for the Challenger 2's the British are taking out of service. It would add, I think it makes sense to buy onto larger scale programs and commit to the upgrade programs of the major players. That would then take all the procurement studies non-sense off the table and ensure a commitment to up-to-date kit, interoperability and a long-term availablility of cheaper parts.
Matthew.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
But then you would be taking jobs away from hard working bureaucrats who would have nothing to do. By doing that the forces would see much more production from dollar value instead of studying a topic to death.
ahh the bitches and gripes never stop.
The Challenger 2 would be nice but the M1A2 would be easier to maintain and deploy especially if we had to lease our equipment movers from the Americans.
ahh the bitches and gripes never stop.
The Challenger 2 would be nice but the M1A2 would be easier to maintain and deploy especially if we had to lease our equipment movers from the Americans.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
I was under the impression we didn't take them because we weren't allowed to make the replacement parts?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
Naaa prob cause they are seen as to aggressive as they actually have a gun on them. And we may be associated with the nasty Americans.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
so the other half we would have to have made in Quebec. ;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Wizard of OZ said:
Just my 2 cents. (worth about a half penny)
The Challenger II, while being a very nice vehicle is VERY heavy, thus not being very friendly to our rapid deployment ideas, nor to our forces idea of balance. And the political fall out about Britain and its subs don't go over very well.
The M1 is also a very nice piece of kit, but yes it is American and identified as such around the world. But is also powered I believe by a turbine engine? Which requires a whole new set of support mechanisms that would cost even more money.
I still believe the Leo II (or the IIA6) would be the ideal. Its similar enough to the C2 to transfer quickly, and is diesel and thus we have the support already set up. Also, enough countries are upgrading their Leo II's to the A6 variant (even Greece for crying out loud!?) that we should be able to get the older model for cheap.
Not that we'll ever see it, but oh well.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
i think with the new system coming in , it works with his CEF idea, not that i agree with getting rid of tanks , but thats the only reason i can see him stick with it and plus he got stuck with it. The system was only bought because the americans cancelled there orders and GM out of london, ont. was stuck with them , so of course the great liberal gov. had to help another canadian coy not lose money.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
I still believe the Leo II (or the IIA6) would be the ideal. Its similar enough to the C2 to transfer quickly, and is diesel and thus we have the support already set up. Also, enough countries are upgrading their Leo II's to the A6 variant (even Greece for crying out loud!?) that we should be able to get the older model for cheap.
Don't say that to loud or we may just get some old piece of junk no one wants anymore.
Hey anybody know how to read Russian? ;D
Don't say that to loud or we may just get some old piece of junk no one wants anymore.
Hey anybody know how to read Russian? ;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Zipper said:
The Abrams is nbow (I believe) configured for a deisil engine...Much cheaper and the parts (mostly Canadian) are readily available right here in Canada, instead of going to Germany for them.
Many times since the invention of the Abrams, the U.S. has offered the tank to us at prices so low that if several of us on the forum got together to buy one we probably could. I believe that the M1 would be the best and CHEAPEST choice for us here in Canada...If we want a tank, that is...
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
I have heard this before as well (on the cheapness of them) however that said do you have anything official. I ask because I'm looking to get myself in shit (ie sending off a few emails) and something official would really help.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
CFL said:
The guy to talk to is probably George Wallace or, possibly, Franko. these guys are far better connected in the Armoured circle now than I am...I have, in the past, seen stuff like you mention from the U.S. and the German's (Leo 2's in Shilo)
I remember one presentation back in the day where the Armoured School RSM was speaking to the troopies in the base theatre and mentioned the various offers I believe they were probably still being considered at the time...Who knows though...
Hope that helps
Slim
