Upgrading of Canadian Forces ... essentially complete ?

[DualCore]

We should create a special topic to correct media errors, in hopes it might catch on, and even journalists might look at it.

Here is my candidate for today:

NATO officers to wrestle with resource issues
 
Mike Blanchfield
CanWest News Service


Saturday, September 01, 2007


OTTAWA -- When NATO's top generals hold a major meeting in Canada next week, they will be discussing a major issue that is familiar in this country: how to meet infinite demands for military might when troops and their equipment are finite.

A senior NATO official in Brussels said yesterday that long-term planning issues will be top of the agenda when Canada hosts its 25 alliance partners for three days of intensive talks in Victoria and Ottawa next week.

NATO's credibility is at stake in Afghanistan, and although that mission faces significant challenges with the growing Taliban insurgency, the alliance's military planners realize they can't expect member countries to contribute significantly more troops and resources. NATO has increased the number of troops in Afghanistan eightfold in recent years to 40,000, the senior military official noted.

With 16,000 additional NATO troops committed to Kosovo, alliance planners recognize the importance of finishing the job there as that one-time Yugoslav province moves closer to full sovereignty.

The discussion by the generals will look at ways of better allocating existing resources as the realization sinks in that defence spending in member countries is unlikely to increase significantly any time in the near future.

The discussion will mirror the one faced by Canada's own military over the past decade as the Defence Department coped with shrinking or stagnant budgets.

Although Canada recently invested close to $20 billion in new military hardware -- including new transport planes -- that upgrade is now essentially complete.

The generals arrive in Ottawa on Thursday and move on to Victoria for two days of talks starting Friday.

© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2007

It is just a remark at the end of an article on another subject, but one C17 arrives and the $20 Billion rebuilding of the Canadian Forces is declared complete.  We haven't signed contracts for most of the stuff announced last summer, and there will probably be an election or two before we sign contracts for the stuff announced this summer. 

 

[Michael OLeary]

You may want to explore this blog:

The Ruxted Group

 

[tomahawk6]

The CF has a long way to go to transform. The Navy has alot of needs including more personnel and a destroyer replacement. The Land Forces could use another 3 battalion regiment to ease the strain of OPTEMPO as well as more personnel to bring all its units up to full strength. Some type of bonus sytem should be implemented to enhance retention. Perhaps going to a 4 year enlistment like we have in the US. This would give the CF the additional ability to get rid of under performers.

 

[BC Old Guy]

The CF has a long way to go to transform. The Navy has alot of needs including more personnel and a destroyer replacement. The Land Forces could use another 3 battalion regiment to ease the strain of OPTEMPO as well as more personnel to bring all its units up to full strength. Some type of bonus sytem should be implemented to enhance retention. Perhaps going to a 4 year enlistment like we have in the US. This would give the CF the additional ability to get rid of under performers.

I think most people would agree with you.  I read the article by Mike Blanchfield as indicating that he thinks the current transformation of the CF is coming to an end.  I agree that the current upgrades are necessary, and hope that the government doesn't stop with these upgrades.

The first step would be to bring the existing infantry battalions (and other units) up to full strength, so that when a unit is deployed it doesn't need to be augmented by a sub-unit from a sister battalion, which means the sister battalion needs even more augmentation if it has to deploy within 18 months.

The CF just went from a system of a 3 year initial engagement, followed by a second 3 year engagement before going to a 20 year (now 25 year) intermediate engagement (which provided unreduced pension at the end of the imtermediate engagement).  The new system has a Variable Initial Engagement, which for Non-Commissioned Members, varies between 3 and 6 years (for most occupations - and the powers that be change the length of the variable engagement from time to time - only applicable to those who sign up after the change).

Even under the old system described above, it took a lot of paperwork to get rid of anyone.  Normally under performers would not be given very good evaluations, but would be kept on.  The administrative process of getting rid of someone takes awhile, (18 months to 3 years), but if applied consistently by the various supervisors and leaders over that time, will work - either to correct the underperformance, or to release the underperfroming individual.

 

[retiredgrunt45]

Over the past 45 years nothing has changed except for the mission. When 1 CMBG was in Germany during the cold war, we always borrowed from "Paul to pay Peter" to keep the brigade at operational strength in Germany. Nothing has changed, we had the exact same problems we're facing right now "attrition". Even though many stayed past their basic engagement to go onto IE's, many also left, leaving combat armed units units in Canada vastly undermanned. The differences where we had to keep a 4500 man mechanized brigade going in Germany operational and now we're hard pressed to keep a 2400 man contingent going in Afghanistan. I'd say we've stepped backwards quite a few steps since then.

 

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

We've got a lot to do yet and I hope that at some point there is an over all review done. I don't think the review that was done a few years ago is relevant anymore given the changing face of our missions. the announcements of ice capable ships for the Navy and the JSS program are good...also the Frigate upgrade program and the submarine program continuing but we do have to address personnel shortages etc. the Cyclone will certainly be a long overdue addition as well. I think personally that we have to move ahead with the single surface combat vessal a little faster. the 280s are getting old way fast (one already decommissioned) and we are going to lack a command and control platform in the very near future if we're not careful.
The Army's getting some good kit but again the personnel issues have to be addressed.
I think the fast air community needs a careful look at too.....F18s were bought when I was a young MARSS Slt......that was a loooooong time ago!!