[bootlegga]

Let's be honest, this is the same thing many here on CKA have been saying for years...I'd like to think this is a wake-up call, but I'm jaded.


Canada's troop commitment to Eastern Europe is exposing weak points in its military

$1:

For years, people in the defence community have been warning that the next big war would be a "come as you are" event — with each nation showing up and fighting with what it has.

The difference between victory and defeat would depend on how quickly and effectively a country could mobilize and manoeuvre its forces.

That sort of mentality permeated the Cold War. It divided Europe into two heavily armed camps for decades and cast a long shadow of nuclear terror across three generations.

The tanks, barbed wire and big guns have been gone since the early 1990s. The Liberal government's recent activation of 3,400 soldiers, sailors and aircrew for duty with the NATO Response Force (NRF) brought with it a chilling echo of those long-ago times.

It also exposed some of the major shortfalls facing the Canadian military in both personnel and equipment.

The Canadian Army, for example, has no dedicated air defence to keep soldiers on the ground safe from attack helicopters and fighter-bombers. As former army commander and now chief of the defence staff Gen. Wayne Eyre told CBC News two years ago, Canada relies on its allies for that kind of protection.

According to several defence analysts, Canada's four-decade old CF-18s would be vulnerable to Russia's modern S-400 Triumf air defence system.

The Royal Canadian Navy, with its newly modernized frigates, is hamstrung when it comes to forming task forces because its dedicated replenishment ship has little in the way of defensive systems needed for a war zone. It would have to be outfitted to defend itself and senior defence officials have long argued that makes the MV Asterix unsuitable and highlights the need to construct dedicated joint support ships.

Canada's current military representative at NATO, Vice-Admiral Scott Bishop, focused on the positive while testifying before a House of Commons committee on Wednesday. He was asked about the serviceability of the fighter jet fleet and noted the country has been called upon to perform a number of NATO air policing missions.

"We get a lot of credit from our allies for the job our men and women are doing in those missions," Bishop said. "I would say we do not see any impact in terms of our ability to deliver to NATO what we have committed."

When asked recently about the possible commitment of thousands of additional military members to Europe, Defence Minister Anita Anand said Canada has the capacity to meet its alliance commitments, even with its relatively small force of roughly 65,000 regular members and 30,000 reservists.

But there's a difference between military capacity and sustainability.

Continued here: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada ... -1.6370874

[DrCaleb]

Who needs air defences anyhow? Or a resupply vessel that can go into war zones?

[Scape]

Hi Jaded!

[xerxes]

Another addendum to the article would be the Carl Gustav AT weapons we're shipping to Ukraine. They're not the current model that is lighter with better optics. They're essentially the OG model, as solid as it is.

Britain and Sweden are shipping NLAW's, which are the cream of the crop when it comes to AT weapons these days. Meanwhile, we're sending our Cold War cast offs.

[DrCaleb]

xerxes xerxes:

Meanwhile, we're sending our Cold War cast offs.

So, the best we have in inventory. What will our soldiers use when Russia comes over the pole?

[xerxes]

Snowballs

[llama66]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

xerxes xerxes:

Meanwhile, we're sending our Cold War cast offs.

So, the best we have in inventory. What will our soldiers use when Russia comes over the pole?

And sharpened sticks.

[DrCaleb]

Perhaps the next government will buy them sticks with a nail in it.

[herbie]

$1:

So, the best we have in inventory. What will our soldiers use when Russia comes over the pole?

In their amphibious ice-breaking tanks?
Probably the same weapons we need to defend ourselves from hordes of Chinese that burrow though the center of the Earth and come out your kid's sandbox in the backyard.

[DrCaleb]

herbie herbie:

$1:

So, the best we have in inventory. What will our soldiers use when Russia comes over the pole?

In their amphibious ice-breaking tanks?

With their Nuclear icebreakers and heavy landing craft, like they just did in Mariupol, or like they did in 2014 at Sevastopol.

[herbie]

Please, I said let's get realistic. Not double down on ridiculous scenarios.

We need ships, planes, drones & shitloads of missiles HERE. And a rapidly deployable specific role to play elsewhere. Like transports and wheeled vehicles, communication and intelligence specialists.

[Thanos]

None of this will ever happen, no matter what is proposed. Our politicians don't have the stomach to regard it as a critically important issue, not when they can spend money instead on multiculturalism and, I dunno, monogrammed golf balls to placate the "small town cheap" sort of crowd.

I highly doubt Canadians would be accepting of the cost required to comprehensively reform our military from top to bottom. And why should we? When a billion dollar frigate ends up coming in at five times the cost projected there's no way in hell we should ever have faith in either our military leadership (especially the careerists in DND Procurement) or any of the politicians who talk the grand plan but somehow never follow through on seeing in becoming reality.

[DrCaleb]

herbie herbie:

Please, I said let's get realistic. Not double down on ridiculous scenarios.

We need ships, planes, drones & shitloads of missiles HERE. And a rapidly deployable specific role to play elsewhere. Like transports and wheeled vehicles, communication and intelligence specialists.

Not doubling down on anything. I would agree that Russia invading Canada was highly improbable. But as we saw, so was their invasion of Ukraine. And they are rolling over Ukraine, who has a larger army than we do, with more advanced aircraft.

So if Russia were to see us as expansion ready, there is nothing we could really do to stop it, besides hope the US will have our backs. And the likelihood of that depends on the mood of the person in the Oval Office.

We need a real armed forces, with real modern capability, so that we can support our allies.

[herbie]

Yet you pictured a scenario involving the size and logistical problems of the US war in the Pacific that requires icebreakers in fleet numbers too. One I've heard repeatedly for over 50 years that continues to be impossible, not just unlikely.
Canada's fortunate enough to be protected from invasion by GEOGRAPHY more than anything else, huge oceans on 3 sides. No one could even pull off a Pearl Harbour sneak attack in this day and age, we would SEE them coming.
And realize that this 'relying on the USA' includes that you must recognize thee fact that even if we weren't their best allies, they'd fucking just take us to protect themselves if it was necessary.
Yeah, we do need to improve our capabilities, but unless we're going to re-establish bases in Europe again what would you propose we do?

[DrCaleb]

herbie herbie:

Yet you pictured a scenario involving the size and logistical problems of the US war in the Pacific that requires icebreakers in fleet numbers too. One I've heard repeatedly for over 50 years that continues to be impossible, not just unlikely.

No, I suggested Russia could use their 3 massive nuclear icebreakers to come across our shared polar borders with an amphibious landing force, and we could do nothing about it.

herbie herbie:

Canada's fortunate enough to be protected from invasion by GEOGRAPHY more than anything else, huge oceans on 3 sides. No one could even pull off a Pearl Harbour sneak attack in this day and age, we would SEE them coming.

And yet, everyone saw the invasion of Ukraine coming, and could do nothing about it.

herbie herbie:

And realize that this 'relying on the USA' includes that you must recognize thee fact that even if we weren't their best allies, they'd fucking just take us to protect themselves if it was necessary.

For being their best allies, they don't always treat us that way. We are their best allies, when it's good for them that we are their best allies. We have lots of allies, but can we count on them 100%? Ukraine had allies too.

herbie herbie:

Yeah, we do need to improve our capabilities, but unless we're going to re-establish bases in Europe again what would you propose we do?

How about buy new fighters, that could go into a war zone with a hostile Russia, where the avionics wouldn't be immediately neutralized by Russia? How about a naval resupply vessel that can go into a war zone? How about a little bit of Arctic patrol capability? How about something that works underwater?

You know, a modern defence force, larger than the country that is currently fighting off Russia? Everything that the article points out, and more?