The Torch

Bits & bites

2009-07-09T22:26:00.002-04:00

Some scattered commentary:

We'll obviously have to wait for the final results of the flight safety investigation, but if the preliminary scuttlebutt is accurate, I'm actually reassured. As I said in a Facebook comment:

I hope this isn't a mechanical failure, although that's entirely possible. As the army has discovered, the talcum-powder grit makes for extremely rigorous maintenance requirements - way more than we're used to. I suspect it was a pilot becoming disoriented in a dust-ball on take-off - although that's just a wild-assed guess on my part. If that's the case, though, the fix is simply about better training and situational awareness.

That might not have been the best phrasing, but what I was getting at was that a training fix is easier to push through at this point than a major equipment purchase.

This G&M editorial is mostly on target, but it goes too far in its praise for the Conservatives in power:

The allotment of $5-billion for armoured vehicles now clearly demonstrates the government's commitment to rebuilding the Armed Forces.

...

Canada arrived in Afghanistan without the required protection or equipment, and soldiers paid the price for that in blood. Soldiers accept unlimited liability. In turn it is the government's responsibility to give them the equipment they need. The Conservative government has done just that.

Look, I'm as happy as the next guy - belay that, I'm far happier than the next guy - that the Family of Land Combat Vehicles (FLCV) projects are being funded. Kudos to those politicians who made that decision.

But one funding announcement for the Army doesn't mean the Conservatives are committed to rebuilding the CF. They're making progress, to be sure, but there are miles to go before we rest on this one, folks.

The biggest problem is personnel - not recruiting, but retention and training. And even the Conservatives have had to scale back their modest expectations on that front and accept that today's government must pay the price for bad decisions made by previous governments.

Even on the equipment side, though, which is the easiest to fix (throw enough money at an equipment problem, and just about every one will quickly disappear), this government has a mixed record.

Like it or not, the biggest equipment priority is the navy, not the army. We need ships built yesterday: replenishment, transport (and not both in one Frankenstein's monster of a platform, please! Yes, I'm looking at you, JSS), destroyers, subs that work (under the arctic ice, preferably), a plan to replace the frigates, a proper plan to deal with coastal patrol...the list goes on. And the longer we delay, the tougher our dilemma.

The Conservatives are doing better than the Liberals did, I'll give them that. But you won't find me throwing laurel wreaths at them the way the G&M did.

I'm all for getting a better grip on mental health issues, and especially suicide in the CF. But the spin in this TorStar story bothers me:

The defence department is overhauling the way it tracks military suicides to give a more accurate – and likely darker – accounting of the mental toll Canadian soldiers are suffering, the Toronto Star has learned.

The project, to be completed by next spring, will record the self-inflicted deaths of former soldiers and reservists going back to 1972. Up to now, only the suicides of actively serving, full-time soldiers have been registered, and the military has prided itself for having a suicide rate below that of the larger Canadian population.

But adding tens of thousands of new death records into the mix will likely inflate that proportion by including soldiers deployed in the Korean War and conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, the Middle East and Africa, as well as Afghanistan.

Many of those who have killed themselves will have been released from the military for reasons of mental health, substance abuse or misconduct, and may have gone on to a lonely end far from the view of the defence department.

Save me the "oh, the military is intentionally downplaying its stats" slant. How many employers track the mental health of those who have left the organization?

And while I'm at it, save me the "new and dangerous class of offender" crap too. Our mental health system was far, FAR less developed in WWII and Korea, and a far, FAR greater proportion of the population fought and were traumatized during those conflicts. We didn't see the societal fabric of Canada unravel during the late forties and fifties, did we?

Pay attention to mental health? By all means. Blow problems out of proportion? No thank you, TorStar.

Canadian, American Wounded Warriors Fish & Heal in NW Ontario

2009-07-09T20:47:00.003-04:00

Blatantly parochial plug warning (I'm from and live in Thunder Bay)....

A group of wounded Canadian and American servicemen will be visiting northwestern Ontario (again) this summer to do some fishing, enjoy some beautiful scenery and, perhaps, heal a bit by just being able to hang out with others who've been where they've been and who are going where they're going.

Kudos to all involved in pulling this together.

Inadvertent disclosure?

2009-07-09T18:03:00.002-04:00

You'll note Mark's post entitled "More on ANSF training problems/Future scale of operations" is no longer up. I'll let BruceR at Flit explain why:

UPDATE: The new 1230 report to Congress linked in this and the two posts below has been pulled from the DOD site today, after being put up yesterday. MTF, I'm sure, but until I know it's been made public (as it's supposed to be, in some form) I'll have to pull all the excerpts. The previous report, from January, is here, in case you're curious, and says many of the same things about security, current ANSF weakness, and shortages of Western mentor teams.

Better safe than sorry.

Fatal Griffon crash in Zabul province

2009-07-09T09:49:00.005-04:00

It looks, sadly, as if this may have been an "ordinary" accident in the field in difficult circumstances (such things happen on, say, exercises too):

Death in an Afghanistan dust cloud
Blinded pilots veered into wall during liftoff, killing 2 Canadian soldiers, British officer

CPL. PATRICIA PRÉVOST, DND HO/THE CANADIAN PRESS PHOTOS

A helicopter crash possibly caused by mechanical failure claimed Master Cpl. Patrice Audet, left, and Cpl. Martin Joannette July 6, 2009, raising the country's death toll from the Afghan mission to 124. Three other Canadians were hurt.
A helicopter crash in Afghanistan that killed three soldiers, two of them Canadian, apparently occurred when the chopper clipped a security wall while trying to manoeuvre in a blinding cloud of dust, The Canadian Press has learned.
Sources familiar with the tragedy said the Griffon C-146 smashed to the ground and burst into flames.
The crash Monday killed Master Cpl. Pat Audet, 38, of Montreal, a flight engineer, and Cpl. Martin Joannette, 25, a gunner from St-Calixte, Que. A British soldier, Capt. Ben Babington-Browne, 27, of the Royal Engineers, was also killed.
Three other Canadians aboard were hurt, one seriously.
It is common in parched southern Afghanistan for helicopters landing or departing at operating bases to become engulfed in the dust whipped up by their rotors.
With a second Griffon in the air nearby, the pilot lifted off and struggled to orient the helicopter in the whirled-up dust storm compounded by gusty conditions that cut visibility essentially to zero, the sources said.
The helicopter veered too close to the reinforced security perimeter, which is designed to ward off suicide bombers and direct fire from insurgents.
Military authorities have declined to talk officially about the circumstances of the crash as an Air Wing investigation has been launched. They will only say publicly that enemy action had been ruled out, despite Taliban claims of having shot down the craft.
The sources said the chopper that was already aloft may have contributed to the adverse conditions surrounding the crash, and that the formal probe may yet uncover other factors.
The two pilots in the downed chopper survived. Canadian military rules bar publication of the names of deployed flight crew.
The two choppers, part of Canadian Helicopter Force Afghanistan based at Kandahar Airfield [more here and here], had flown to a remote American forward operating base in the Tarnak va Jaldak district of southwest Zabul province, about 80 kilometres northeast of Kandahar city.
The flight ranging just outside Canada's normal area of operations in Kandahar province was to pick up the British engineer.
Under normal operating protocols – essentially for reasons of security – the Griffons fly in pairs, allowing them to keep an eye on each other. The crews depend heavily on sight to know where the other is at any given moment, and the flying itself also relies on visual orientation...

Cpl. Joannette of the Army is an example of the jointness in CF operations in Afstan--more here and here. Meanwhile a typical CBC effort:

Military/Afghanistan

Griffon Chopper Questions

July 7, 2009 (Runs 2:11)
Lynne Robson reports on questions surrounding the use of CH-146 Griffon helicopters in Afghanistan, after one crashed July 6, killing two Canadian soldiers.

play video

Not that I'd call the Griffon "a superior helicopter" for the mission as MND MacKay does near the end of the clip (see this April 2008 post of Babbling's and this post on the upgrades done on the aircraft). Here's a post by Babbling after a flight on a Griffon in Afstan this January.

Update: CP video of choppers in Afstan and dust.

US Marine realities in Helmand

2009-07-09T09:45:00.006-04:00

Further to this post, more from BruceR at Flit:

Tomorrow's essential Afghan reading, early

Didn't want to wait until tomorrow. This is spot-on analysis, by Australian MGen (retd.) Jim Molan. I think it goes a long way toward explaining the odd remarks on the lack of ANSF in the NYT (post below):

There is unlikely to be anything like a decisive result out of this operation, even in the local area in the short term. Marine commanders will talk up the operation because that is what you do, and the media, Congress and commentators will project their own hopes and desires onto the operation, and then castigate the Marines for not meeting them.

Molan, Chief of Operations (ChOps) for Multinational Force-Iraq in 2004-05, has some more good stuff below the fold.

With 4000 deployed troops from this 11,000-strong Marine force, relatively few small outposts can be established because each outpost must be big enough to protect itself against initial attack, and must be backed up by quick reaction forces held in reserve. So even if this operation goes perfectly it will merely establish small groups of Marines in a number of local areas. This is the right first step. It then requires the re-establishment of local governance, which will take years, and the replacement of the Marines with Afghan troops and police...

The other side of locating Marines in many local villages to help establish governance, control and protection is that this Marine force is now tied down in that area for (probably) some years to come. If there were adequate coalition troops in Afghanistan this would not be a problem. Given there is only one-third to one-half the number of capable troops needed in Afghanistan, this is a big problem indeed. And the area in which they are tied down is relatively close to the Pakistan border and (it is assumed) to larger numbers of Taliban forces. An even greater reliance on air power may be the result.

Once again, non-military agencies have failed to support the US military’s actions. Talk in the Obama strategy about diplomacy, aid, governance, policing, agriculture and local infrastructure has come to nought because none of the people have been made available by their agencies. The US military might be at war, but the rest of the US and the US government certainly is not. The troops will have to do it all, probably until at least the end of this year. The two constants of modern military operations (Australia included) are the failure of our societies to ever provide enough troops initially, and the failure of our governments to provide non-military (interagency) personnel.

The pitiful lack of Afghan troops involved in KHANJAR (4000 Marines deployed but only about 650 Afghan troops) indicates that the hope of producing an Afghan force numerous and capable enough to take over counterinsurgency from the coalition is five to ten years away. Most of the Marines won't have nearby Afghan troops to provide them with local knowledge.

The nature of this operation indicates that regardless of what Obama’s strategy might say, the US is still in a holding strategy. Petraeus knows this better than anyone and as much said so at recent House Armed Services Committee hearings...

Update: From The Economist (nice map-- note the Danes, see 2) here):

...
The operations have two main aims: to enlarge and merge the patches of territory controlled by NATO along the “green zone” (the ribbon of irrigated land alongside the Helmand river and its tributaries) and to interdict the flow of Taliban fighters and weapons through the desert from Pakistan. The marines are pushing into insurgent-held areas in the districts of Nawa and Garmser (see map). They have also struck deep in the south to build a new base in the town of Khanishin, from where marines will try to disrupt Taliban supply routes. On July 8th the Afghan flag was raised over the town’s 18th-century fort.

General Stanley McChrystal, the overall American commander, said his force may soon assault Marja, a well defended stronghold of the Taliban and drug smugglers. The Taliban said their own response, Operation Foladi Jal (Iron Net), would avoid frontal battles but would teach the marines “a lesson” through roadside bombs and ambushes...
The biggest change under General McChrystal is the instruction to reduce civilian casualties. A “tactical directive”, issued at the start of Thrust of the Sword, says that winning the support of the Afghans overrides all else. “We must avoid the trap of winning tactical victories—but suffering strategic defeats—by causing civilian casualties or excessive damage and thus alienating the people,” he says. This may increase the danger to troops; but the greater risk is to push Afghans into the arms of the Taliban.

A classified passage sets out how air strikes will be curtailed. But on the ground, his officials say, the share of firefights involving close air support has already fallen from 35% to 17% in the past month [emphasis added]. During the summer of 2007 an average of 22 tonnes of ordnance was dropped on Helmand every month...

CF in the field in Zhari province, March 2009

2009-07-09T09:35:00.003-04:00

Reuters slide show (via Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs).

Helmand and ANSF problems

2009-07-08T19:45:00.001-04:00

From BruceR at Flit:

ANSF deployment limits: people starting to notice?

NYT:

One week after several battalions of Marines swept through the Helmand River valley, military commanders appear increasingly concerned about a lack of Afghan forces in the field.

Oh, there's plenty of Afghans. They just can't be moved to Helmand, some of the reasons for which I tried to explain here. And for reasons explained by Dorronsoro in the post below, one could argue they probably shouldn't be, either.

What I don't understand is why this would come as such a surprise, the way the reporter tells it. The deployment and laydown limitations and other related ANSF problems have been totally self-evident to anyone who has worked with them regularly in theatre recently. I could have told the Americans they weren't going to get another brigade's worth in Helmand by June, as could any number of other people I worked with or for. If the linked report is to be believed, that would imply that in our effort to certify their success, someone has been glossing over deep weaknesses in their capability in their reports to higher. Of course, to misquote Feynman, "reality can't be fooled," so in the end, the only risk there is that we'd end up fooling ourselves. Which, again if the linked report is to be believed, would be implied by what is happening now.

No, I don't buy that the Americans are "increasingly concerned" now, because I honestly don't know who could have dissembled here so badly, and told Gen. Nicholson or his superiors confidently that he'd be getting the numbers of Afghan soldiers he felt he needed for his plan to work, or that having that information he would not identify it as a critical flaw before, you know, the operation actually was launched. But I'll tell you right now it wouldn't have been mentors working at my level... or the ANA, for that matter. They know the score better than we do in that respect. I also recall reading or hearing at least two Western officers of Nicholson's rank level in theatre making statements roughly congruous what I'm saying in this post in semi-privileged forums there, too, and that was months before Nicholson would have arrived. So if there was any wishful thinking about the Afghan security forces in evidence before the operation, where exactly would it have been coming from?

UPDATE: For that matter, I can recall a couple Helmand operations that were cancelled or called off in the last year precisely because it was clear the ANSF were not going to be able to materialize in the numbers required for success. Surely the initial read-in into their area of operations would have brought that to staff planners' attention. No, having this complaint come to the fore just now makes no sense at all from a planning perspective.

No, the Marines knew the problem going in, all right. Perhaps the only person "increasingly concerned" here is the reporter himself. Hey, TIA, man. ("This Is Afghanistan", to misquote Blood Diamond).

Today's essential Afghan reading

Gilles Dorronsoro again, one of the more clear-eyed Afghan commentators:

The ANA’s command and control is still weak and does not enable it to operate
on its own, independent of [international] leadership. Observers in direct contact with the ANA report that operations involving more than 100 troops cannot be effectively conducted autonomously.

True dat. Also of interest:

[Helmand] is not the main base of the Taliban—even though the
opposition is extremely strong there, the organization of the insurgency is not
classically Taliban. Overall, the core territory for the movement is Kandahar, Zabul, and from Ghazni to the south of Wardak. In this area, the Taliban have the support of a significant part of the population and its elites (mostly mullahs, but also landlords and tribal leaders).

Note this is exactly counter to all the planning assumptions that have gone into Western strategy in the south the last two years: that insurgents were primarily crossing into Helmand from Pakistan and then moving west to east toward Kandahar City. Dorronsoro's thesis is that the inflow we need to worry about is actually primarily the other way, with Zabul province "totally under Taliban control."

Now these things do change, and change back, over time. Dorronsoro says Zabul has been the route of choice for guerrilla infiltration historically, but what's not clear is whether he sees this as something that's been the case throughout, or might have recently changed back to something more like the historical norm after the large Western deployments in Helmand started in mid-2008. I can't believe we were so entirely misguided in our earlier assessments there, but certainly it's fair to say that the increased effort in Helmand in the last 12 months has not had the positive effects on the rest of the south we might have hoped for.

How long?

Armoured vehicle upgrade and acquisitions

2009-07-08T15:44:00.008-04:00

Interesting that there in no mention of procuring LAV-Hs, which earlier had been thought possible. Note also the much larger number of "close combat vehicles" than the 20 or so previously mentioned (see immediately preceding link for details on one possible vehicle). A CP story:

Ottawa to spend $5B on combat vehicles [of course such vehicles are also useful for other sorts of missions such as, er, peackeeping--hell our Leopard 1 tanks were deployed to Kosovo, see (outdated) fourth para here]
Money to buy new vehicles and upgrade LAV-3s already in Afghanistan

OROMOCTO, N.B. – The federal government is spending $5 billion to upgrade the Canadian army's combat vehicles, including improvements for its existing light armoured vehicle fleet.
At an announcement Wednesday at CFB Gagetown, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said about $1 billion of the money allocated for the program will be spent to upgrade the LAV-3s that are now in service in Afghanistan.
The government is also buying close combat vehicles, tactical armoured patrol vehicles and force mobility enhancement vehicles.
But MacKay did not announce that the government is purchasing the next generation of light armoured vehicle, known as the LAV-H, which had been anticipated.
The LAV-3s have been the army's principle fighting vehicle in Afghanistan, but have taken a beating, with many in need of a major overhaul by the time the combat mission ends in 2011 [see "More" at middle of this post].
Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, chief of the land staff, said the next generation of land combat vehicles gives the army the flexibility it needs.
"These vehicles will provide the army with the modern and robust equipment needed to fulfil its role in today's increasingly dangerous operating environment," he said in a news release. "They will also ensure that we are ready to take on the challenges of the future."
The money will be spent to upgrade 550 LAV-3s, with an option to upgrade another 80.
The military is purchasing 108 close combat vehicles, with an option to buy 30 more; and 500 tactical armoured patrol vehicles, with an option for 100 more [emphasis added].
In a news release, MacKay said the announcement is part of the government's Canada First Defence Strategy and the purchases will create jobs in both the manufacturing and maintenance of the vehicles [the LAV III work will be done by General Dynamics Land Systems at London, Ont.--see "Programs" at left and go to AFV].
"In addition to a renewed commitment to domestic security, this defence investment creates jobs, brings economic benefits to Canadian industry, and creates and sustains long-term employment for Canadians."
Contracts are expected to be awarded for 2011 and the military will start using the new vehicles by 2012.
The government says it expects the entire fleet to be fully operational by 2015.

More at this post, with some details on the tactical armoured patrol vehicles. Now what about signing the contract for new CH-47Fs, also mentioned at the preceding link? And I'll be gobsmacked if all four vehicle contracts are awarded by 2011 given the government's procurement, er, peculiarities. How much manufacturing in Canada will be done for the non-LAV vehicles, and how long will that take to arrange (note the "potentially" below)?

From the official news release:

...
The Family of Land Combat Vehicles (FLCV) projects, valued at approximately $5 billion, including an estimated $1 billion to upgrade the current fleet of Light Armoured Vehicles (LAV) III, will deliver the next generation of land combat vehicles, providing the Army with a flexible, multi-purpose capability that will enable the Canadian Forces to respond effectively and successfully to the full spectrum of military operations. The renewal of land combat vehicles is a key commitment of the Canada First Defence Strategy...

As part of this initiative, the current fleet of LAV III vehicles will be upgraded and three new fleets of land combat vehicles will be acquired, including Close Combat Vehicles (CCV), Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicles (TAPV), and the Force Mobility Enhancement (FME) vehicles...
All FLCV projects are now entering the definition phase, which analyses procurement strategies and specific requirements. As part of this phase, the Government of Canada will partner with General Dynamics Land Systems – Canada (GDLS-C) to develop a solution for the upgrade of the LAV IIIs. When this contract is awarded, it will generate significant early economic benefits to the country, including sustaining employment
The four projects will deliver significant economic benefits across Canada, with Canadian firms potentially [emphasis added] participating in the manufacturing and assembly of vehicles as well as the engineering and support services over the next 25 years as part of long-term in-service support contracts...
The Department of National Defence works closely with Public Works and Government Services Canada and Industry Canada to develop strategies for major defence procurement, ensuring that Canadians get best value for money spent, and maximum benefits to industry [ah, those "peculiarities"].

The Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRB) Policy, administered by Industry Canada, will be applied to all projects. Winning contractors will be required to undertake business activities in Canada at 100% of the contract values. This means that one dollar of economic activity will be generated in Canada for every contract dollar awarded...
The next steps for the CCV, FME, and TAPV projects will be the publishing of a combination of solicitations of interest qualification (SOIQ), requests for proposal (RFP), letters of interest (LOI) or price and availability (P&A) on the MERX site in the coming weeks. The Canadian Forces will start using the new land combat vehicles by 2012 [emphasis added, good bloody luck for all of them], with a fully operational fleet intended for 2015.

Backgrounders:

Light Armoured Vehicle (LAV) III Upgrade Project

...
The LAV III Upgrade project will upgrade 550 vehicles with an option for an additional 80 [that would be almost all the current fleet]. Initial operational capability is scheduled for 2012.

The project will now enter the definition phase to determine the scope of the work to be done. General Dynamics Land Systems–Canada (GDLS-C), the original equipment manufacturer, will be awarded a contract to conduct this definition work and will also be selected to implement the upgrades [emphases added--what, do competitive process?].

Close Combat Vehicle

...
Unlike the other vehicles in the Family of Land Combat Vehicles, the CCV is not replacing a vehicle in the current Canadian Forces fleet. Instead, the CCV will bridge the gap between light armoured vehicles (five to 20 tonnes) and heavy armoured vehicles (more than 45 tonnes), coming in between 25 and 45 tonnes.

The CCV will allow infantry to operate in intimate support of the Leopard 2 tanks, providing the Army with a more balanced and integrated fleet. This vehicle’s reliable protection and enhanced mobility and firepower will improve our troops’ combat effectiveness on the battlefield of today and tomorrow...

The procurement process will be a competitive military off-the-shelf approach [emphasis added].

The tracked CCV really will be a significant enhancement in the capabilities of the Army's armour.

Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle

The Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) is a general utility combat vehicle that can fulfill a variety of roles on the battlefield, such as reconnaissance and surveillance, command and control, and cargo and armoured personnel carrier. The TAPV will provide both a very high degree of protection to the crew while remaining highly mobile. The TAPV is designed to tackle tough terrain, providing troops with a cross-country capability to give greater flexibility in choosing routes.

The TAPV will replace the Armoured Patrol Vehicle (RG-31), the LAV 2 (Coyote only) and will complement the Light Utility Vehicle Wheeled (G-Wagon).

There will be two variants of vehicles procured under this project. The first is the reconnaissance (recce) variant, which will replace the Coyote reconnaissance vehicle. The Recce variant will have a crew of four and will be equipped with either a one-man turret or a Remote Weapon Station (RWS). The second variant, the general utility vehicle, will be the new armoured personnel carrier [emphasis added]. With a crew of three, the vehicle can carry an additional four equipped passengers and will be fitted with a RWS.

The TAPV project will procure 500 vehicles with an option for an additional 100. Specifically, the Canadian Forces will acquire up to 200 of the Recce variant and up to 300 of the general utility variant [emphasis added]. Deliveries will begin in 2012 and initial operational capability is expected a year later.

The procurement process will be a competitive military off-the-shelf acquisition [emphasis added]...

Force Mobility Enhancement

The Force Mobility Enhancement (FME) project includes the acquisition of a fleet of Armoured Engineer Vehicles (AEV) that will provide crucial support to the Leopard 2 tanks, LAV III, and future fleets, such as the Close Combat Vehicle and the Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle. The project will also install tactical mobility implements on the fleet of Leopard 2 main battle tanks.

The first phase of this project is to acquire Armoured Engineer Vehicles (AEV). The ability of these vehicles to operate under heavy fire will further enhance the Canadian Forces’ mobility and deployability in a wide range of missions. This phase will also acquire Armoured Recovery Vehicles (ARV) in support of the AEV.

The AEV ensures troops have a clear, safe path to navigate by clearing mines, debris and other obstacles, filling in craters and providing limited road maintenance and construction. As the new fleet of AEV will use a Leopard 2 tank chassis [emphasis added], they will have a high degree of crew protection and will continue to be an integral part of any armour deployment.

The new AEV will replace the Canadian Forces’ aging fleet of Leopard 1-based Armoured Engineering Vehicle (AEV) Badger fleet. The new fleet of AEV will be capable of supporting the Leopard 2 main battle tank fleet until 2035. FME will procure 13 AEVs, with options for an additional five vehicles.

The second vehicle, the ARV, is like a tow-truck for a tank or other large, armoured vehicle. The ARV is able to recover vehicles from the battlefield while under fire, thanks to its high degree of crew protection. This vehicle will also use a Leopard 2 tank chassis [emphasis added] as a basis and will be acquired by exercising contract options from the Tank Replacement Project. FME will procure two ARVs, with an option of an additional two...

The procurement process will be a competitive military off-the-shelf acquisition [emphasis added]...

Update: See about half-way down this post at Milnet.ca for more details on the TAPV and read on for some informed comment.

A military network

2009-07-08T11:39:00.002-04:00

A fascinating idea:

The Canadian military is considering developing its own version of social-networking applications such as Facebook and Twitter to help soldiers communicate and improve teamwork in the increasingly networked environment of modern warfare.

The research and development arm of the Department of National Defence plans to hire a contractor to research and develop social-networking software for military use, with a view toward developing an internal prototype by as early as next March.

"Virtual social networking web applications (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn) represent a dramatic change in the way individuals and groups connect, and in the way information is disseminated via the Internet," state recently released tender documents.

The Canadian Forces are "interested in the usefulness and feasibility of implementing web-based virtual social networking in the military domain, where information sharing and locating sources of expertise is essential to interoperability," state the documents, noting that such tools would be especially useful where team members are physically separate and unfamiliar with each other.

The article is mostly well-penned, but this paragraph misses the mark:

The push to jump on the social-networking bandwagon represents the latest twist in the Canadian Forces' sometimes ambivalent stance toward such technologies. In the past, the Defence Department has warned Canadian troops not to post photos and other information on Facebook and other websites, arguing that such postings could endanger soldiers and their families, according to a memo obtained last year by the CBC.

The reason DND is working on its own site is to keep such information private. The PERSEC risks are real. There are bad people in this world, and a good number of them particularly dislike Canadian troops.

If the department was just "jumping on the social-networking bandwagon" as the article's author puts it, they'd just remove the restrictions on using Facebook/MySpace/etc rather than spend money building their own version.

No, the whole point of this effort is to reap the benefits of social networking without incurring the associated risks, and that means developing a secure site.

The Globe & Mail also weighs in with another good point:

The military already uses popular virtual applications Second Life and iLink for training, but this is the Forces' first foray into social networking.

The CAE report noted that units and personnel are constantly shuffled, changes that can be difficult for even long-serving members of the Forces to track, but social networking could ease those troubles, serving as a virtual Rolodex.

Getting up to speed on military operations and the who's who of a unit can be a stumbling block for new recruits, but the report's authors highlighted the merits of social networking as a training tool.

“[It could provide] them with information passed on by their predecessor, as well as provide various levels of information on the operation and on other team members.”

One of the biggest structural issues in a large bureaucracy like DND is striking a balance between open communication - so all those who have something to contribute to a given issue can do just that - and information overload - where the individual member is bombarded with information that's not relevant to his or her expertise (cc'd on a million memos, for example). Social networking allows those lines of communication to open and close organically, rather than along imposed organizational lines.

I'll be interested to see where this goes.

The William (Billy) Kerr "Home for a Hero" Project

2009-07-08T11:19:00.003-04:00

Thanks to Andrew McLean for the pointer:

Cpl Bill Kerr joined the Irish Regiment of Canada in 2003. In 2005 he volunteered for a tour in Afghanistan and after deploying in 2006, returned to Sudbury in the spring of 2007. Shortly after his return to Sudbury, he volunteered again to deploy overseas, and began his pre-deployment training before the Afghan sand was out of his kit.

After deploying again in September 2008, he was critically wounded while on foot patrol by a remote detonated improvised explosive device on October 15th 2008. He was evacuated to Landstuhl, Germany, and then on to hospital in Ottawa, where he has been living and recovering since.

The injuries Bill sustained will leave him with the distinction of being Canada’s only Afghanistan veteran triple-amputee, having lost both his legs and his left arm. As can be expected with these injuries, Bill needs a home that is fully wheelchair accessible.

The Kerrs need our help:
-----------------------------

Since his injuries, Bill Kerr’s friends and family have begun the "Home for a Hero" fundraising drive, designed to help with the expense of building an accessible home for Bill and his family.

Bill has two daughters, and is getting married this August to fiancée Tracy. He is intending to walk his new wife down the aisle on his new legs.

How can you help?
----------------------

Donations can be made at any RBC Royal Bank.

You will need the following information:
Branch Bank Account
05002 003 5051024
Contact Info
Email: jeffblack-at-rwdsu-dot-ca
Website: http://www.rwdsu.ca

A lot of attention is paid to those who give their lives in service of their country, because we know their names. Even on this site, we keep the list in the sidebar.

But although they don't have the same public profile - and in many cases don't want the attention - we should help the wounded where and when we can.

Update: Thanks to Tony for the pointer to some additional information on Kerr:

Kerr, 41, is a reservist who volunteered for his second deployment to Afghanistan, where he served as an embedded mentor for the Afghan National Police. “I thought it was something worth doing,” Kerr said of his decision to return. “I felt like it wasn’t done.”

Kerr’s second tour of duty was a near-constant fight, with the enemy uncomfortably close to his base. “At 300 meters you got shot at, at 400 meters you were in a big fight, and at 500 meters you were at their door,” he said.

But as an infantryman, he said “wanting to get in the thick of it” was simply “what you do, … part of your mentality,” so he embraced the mission as he patrolled with the “Razorbacks,” a unit that blended infantry and military police troops.

During a foot patrol in October, Kerr was the fifth soldier into a doorway when a remote-controlled blast severed both legs and his left arm from his body. He never lost consciousness, and remembers looking at what was left of his body and expecting -- even wanting -- to die.

He didn’t. Rushed for care at Kandahar Airfield, then Landstuhl Army Medical Center in Germany, then back to Canada, Kerr cheated the death he had expected. Less than two months after his injury, he was took his first steps on two prostheses. He expects to be able to walk with a cane by late April.

...

Both Trauner and Kerr want to stay on active duty. “I really, really do,” Trauner said, while conceding that he most likely will have to move into an administrative position. “I’m very proud to stay.”

“I’m not going anywhere,” echoed Kerr. But unlike Trauner, he envisions himself being back in an infantry job. “I want to be kicking in doors again,” he said. “I would be back there now if I could.”

Kerr dismisses what he sometimes hears on TV or reads in the papers about the mission in Afghanistan going downhill. “Opinions are always opinions,” he said, adding that people who haven’t been there don’t really know what’s going on there.

“I think we are doing some good and making progress there,” he said. “I felt really good going into this mission. I left like I was really contributing.”

What an exceptional individual.

"Snowbird pilot's death blamed on 'false-lock' problem with lap belt"

2009-07-07T14:50:00.003-04:00

The Air Force does not look too sharp on this (the cause has been basically known for some two years, see this post of Babbling's):

A known problem with the lap belt design on Snowbird jets was the cause of a pilot losing control and crashing during a practice run in 2007, a report released Monday concludes.

The crash occurred during an afternoon practice on May 18 involving four Snowbird Jets. The group was preparing for a weekend show at the Malmstrom Air Force Base open house in Montana.

Capt. Shawn McCaughey, 31, died when he lost control of his plane and crashed into the ground without ejecting.

The report, from the Flight Safety Directorate of the Canadian Air Force, concludes that his lap belt did not engage properly, which led to McCaughey falling out of his seat during an upside-down manoeuvre.

According to the report, a piece of equipment obstructed the plane's control stick, preventing the pilot from raising the nose of the aircraft.

The report said that the use of the ejection seat system was "not a viable survival option," and the pilot did not attempt to eject.

The report notes that the lap belt problem was a known issue for the planes, in which the belt sometimes appeared to be correctly fastened when it was not.

The report adds that the so-called false-lock problem had been communicated to pilots, who were given procedures to follow to address the issue.

The report noted that McCaughey was familiar with the procedures and had employed them in the past, but the report could not say why the false-lock issue was not remedied before the 2007 crash.

"This tragic accident was clearly preventable," the report said. "There was a known airworthiness deficiency, and training was provided to the aircrew to mitigate the risk in the short term."

The report said pilots were supposed to follow certain procedures to ensure their lap belts were securely fastened, but that did not happen in this case.

"This accident also serves to highlight dangers of complacency," the report concluded.

It noted that about five years had passed between the initial observation of a problem and McCaughey's crash.

Recent Snowbirds posts:

Snowbirds being made ready to perform again
Snowbirds: Down but not out (but should they be?) [lapbelt still causing problems]

Update: Some informed comment at Milnet.ca.

Meanwhile:

Father of Snowbird pilot calls military 'negligent' in son's death

New Chinooks, armoured vehicles: Let's hope this story is accurate

2009-07-07T09:09:00.005-04:00

Certainly about time a contract was finally signed for the CH-47Fs:

$10 billion for military equipment
Tories approve plans to buy armoured vehicles, helicopters

The Harper government has approved a plan to purchase new armoured vehicles for the Canadian Forces and is set to announce that it has finally reached a deal on the purchase of additional Chinook helicopters.

The government is now trying to decide how best to roll out the military projects, which total almost $10 billion, for maximum public-relations value...

The Harper government originally announced its intention to buy 16 Chinooks in the summer of 2006, but negotiations with Boeing have been slow because Canada wanted a variety of changes made to the aircraft [allocating industrial regional benefits for Canadian firms has also been a major factor in the slow pace, more here]...

The 16 Chinooks aren't expected to be delivered until after 2011, the end of Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan, according to various Conservative cabinet ministers.

In the summer of 2006, the Defence Department noted that the total cost of the purchase of the 16 Chinooks would be around $4.7 billion. That included a 20-year support package for the aircraft [emphasis added].

The armoured-vehicle purchases would include what is being called a close-combat vehicle that would be used to accompany the army's Leopard 2 tanks. The acquisitions will also include a new armoured tactical patrol vehicle and an upgrade of the existing LAV-3 fleet that has been worn down by continued use in Afghanistan. Also added to the package is the purchase of a new armoured engineering vehicle.

Defence industry officials estimate the value of the armoured-vehicle purchases total around $5 billion.

The approval by the government of the purchases now sets in motion the process for the Defence Department to officially begin the projects and receive funding from Treasury Board. The individual programs will then unfold over the next seven to 10 years.

According to a timeline of the procurements obtained by the Citizen, the bulk of the money for the close-combat vehicle and the tactical armoured patrol vehicle would be spent from 2013 to 2016. It is unclear whether the Conservative government will move more quickly than that with the procurements...

Regarding the Tactical Armored Patrol Vehicle (TAPV):

...
While discussing CF armoured vehicle priorities in mid-2008, Chief of Land Staff, LGen Andrew Leslie, mentioned an armoured patrol vehicle which would be smaller than a Coyote but better protected than a G-wagon. This is called a Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle. TAPV is considered a key component of FLCS [Family of Land Combat Systems] and, ultimately, will replace both the Coyote (now being upgraded) and the RG-31 APV as well as some G-Wagons. Other than being armoured and smaller than a Coyote, there are few details about TAPV. [2] DND wants a wheeled vehicle but emphasizes mobility. An improved Fennek [3] is one possibility, the recce version of the US JLTV [4] is another...

...[3] Being a low-slung vehicle, Fennek did not fare all that with mines and IEDs. The original Fennek has now been upgraded with add-on armour packages. KMW has also developed a 'next-generation' Fennek, the better protected F2 (originally known as the GP-F2T Fennek).
[4] The Joint Light Tactical Vehicles seem to have survived the recent DoD budget cuts...

Reading More Tea Leaves about Canada's Future in Afghanistan

2009-07-06T20:30:00.003-04:00

Am I reading too much into this?

Nice Flickr photos of Kabul, Mazar-i-Sharif
+
March 13, 2008 Parliamentary Resolution calling for withdrawn from Kandahar (not Afghanistan) by 2011
=
Maybe Canada isn't leaving Afghanistan in 2011?

The Canada-Afghanistan Blog would like to see a continued presence, with Mark pointing out there have been breaks in Canada's military presence in Afghanistan.

Just askin'

New USAF Air Wing established at KAF

2009-07-06T15:19:00.005-04:00

The USAF is a generally unreported part of the American surge (via Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs):

AF stands up 2nd wing in Afghanistan

The buildup of airmen inside Afghanistan met another milestone with the standing up of the second wing in Afghanistan.

The 451st Air Expeditionary Wing was formally established during a July 2 ceremony at Kandahar Airfield in southern Afghanistan.

Commanding the new wing is Brig. Gen. Guy M. Walsh. Before taking the Kandahar assignment, Walsh led the Maryland Air National Guard’s 175th Wing, home to C-130Js and A-10 Thunderbolts. He also served in 2005 as the director of staff for the Combined Air Operations Center at Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar.

The Air Force has been at Kandahar since 2001, however units there answered to a wing headquartered several hundred miles away at Bagram Airfield.

The mission at Kandahar has steadily grown to include a C-130J squadron, aerial port operations, combat search and rescue sorties and MQ-1 Predator flights.

The USAF unit at Kandahar was previously called the 451st Air Expeditionary Group. And note this from April:

...Some lumbering American A-10 attack jets known as Warthogs now based in the north of the country are to shift to KAF soon, too...

Also from April:

...
By the way, the USAF is flying UAVs, MQ-1 Predators and MQ-9 Reapers, out of Kandahar Air Field:
...
"(Both the MQ-1 and MQ-9 are weapons-carrying aircraft,) and both have a hunter-killer role in addition to their intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities," said Lt. Col. Scott Miller, the 62nd ERS [Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron] commander, who is deployed from the 432nd Air Expeditionary Wing at Creech AFB...

The Group at Kandahar was under the 455th Air Expeditionary Wing at Bagram Airfield near Kabul. The 772nd Expeditionary Airlift Squadron with C-130Js became part of the unit in March.

Update thought: Curiously, in air force ranks based on the RAF, a Group Captain out-ranks a Wing Commander.

CF surveillance in Afstan

2009-07-06T08:30:00.003-04:00

Two pieces:

Canada To Buy Towers and Aerostats For Afghanistan

Eyes in the Afghan sky
Canadian chopper crews keep watch over ground forces [earlier post here]

Predate: There are also our Heron UAVs and (maybe) our Aurora patrol aircraft (more here).

Interested in How the Taliban SAYS They're Doing?

2009-07-05T19:25:00.003-04:00

Their latest monthly scorecard is available online - some highlights:

297 “civilians martyred”
182 “mujahid wounded”
86 “mujahid martyred”
688 “enemy military vehicles and tanks destroyed”
287 “invader wounded”
1053 “invader killed”
7 “martyrdom operations”
584 “number of operations”

More here - enjoy the lies, uh, I mean alternative viewpoint!

Polar Epsilon: Upgrade for our Arctic and maritime satellite surveillance

2009-07-04T15:05:00.007-04:00

See this earlier post for detailed background and further links on the Polar Epsilon project. Now the upgrade:

Canada's ability to watch over its coastlines and the Arctic will get a boost early next year when an orbiting satellite is upgraded, allowing it to better conduct surveillance of vessels.

The Defence Department has long had plans to use Radarsat-2 for maritime surveillance and last week, the satellite's owner, MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates of Richmond, B.C., was awarded a $25-million contract to proceed with what is being called project Polar Epsilon.

Polar Epsilon involves using the satellite for Arctic and maritime surveillance as well as constructing new ground stations to receive the data from the spacecraft. The Defence Department has budgeted $64 million for the project.

Radarsat-2 is already capable of detecting ships, but the planned changes to the spacecraft will further refine that, said David Hargreaves, a vice-president at MDA.

"We are going to upgrade the satellite to have some special maritime modes, which are really better at detecting ships over a wider area than the current mode," he explained. "Essentially, you upload a new program to the satellite that knows how to program the antennae to transmit a different kind of (surveillance) beam."

Hargreaves described the process as "almost like installing a new program on a personal computer."

Radarsat-2 is able to view objects day or night and in all kinds of weather. That capability is deemed particularly important, since military officers say much of Canada is in darkness or obscured by clouds about 70 per cent of the time.

Stations to receive data from the satellite, launched in December 2007, will be built on the east and west coasts, said navy Lt.-Cmdr. Robert Quinn, who heads project Polar Epsilon at Defence headquarters.

The ground receiving equipment will be located at Canadian Forces stations at Masstown, N.S., and Aldergrove, B.C.

On an interim basis, the Defence Department will use ground stations already located in Gatineau and Prince Albert, Sask. "But soon as our ground stations are up, we'll shift reception to Masstown and Aldergrove," Quinn said.

The initial information from the spacecraft will be processed at the British Columbia site and sent to various users in the Defence Department.

Quinn said the first job for the project is in providing surveillance data covering the Arctic. After that is received, the military could assign patrol aircraft or ground or naval units to further examine what the spacecraft has picked up.

But Quinn noted the project would also handle other surveillance needs for the Canadian Forces, domestically and internationally.

Other federal departments will use Radarsat-2 for various jobs, such as monitoring pollution or ice movement [e.g. Canadian Coast Guard, Transport Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada].

Radarsat-2 was mostly financed by the federal government, but is owned by MDA...

Update thought: To complement the satellite capability, how about...

A civilian maritime patrol aircraft fleet?

After all the Air Force's Aurora fleet is being reduced to ten aircraft and any replacement is quite a few years away--at very best.

Upperdate: Further to the Update, Bombardier has a good plane for civilian use:

FIELD AVIATION DELIVERS MODIFIED DASH 8 MARITIME SURVEILLANCE AIRCRAFT TO ICELAND

Field Aviation just announced this:
Toronto, July 6, 2009-In a formal ceremony held at its Toronto Pearson airport facilities, Field Aviation today delivered a highly modified Dash 8 Q300 Maritime Surveillance aircraft to the Icelandic Coast Guard [these are not primarily search and rescue planes though Bombardier highlights that role--see near end of this post starting "As for Bombardier..."] . The event, which attracted more than 150 invited guests, included Iceland’s Ambassador to Canada, Her Excellency Ms. Sigridur Anna Thordardottir and Georg Larusson, director general of the Icelandic Coast Guard.

The event was also attended by Mr. K. C. Maple, a Canadian who, in an attempt to sail the North Atlantic to Norway from Canada in 2004, encountered a violent storm off the coast of Iceland and in 16-foot seas was rescued by an Icelandic Coast Guard Super Puma helicopter. Mr. Maple was reunited with Lieutenant Commander Audunn Krsitinsson who pulled him to safety during that heroic rescue mission.

Field Aviation, the prime contractor and integrator on the Icelandic Coast Guard project valued at more than $30 million, partnered with Bombardier Aerospace, which supplied the basic Dash 8 Q300 aircraft, and L-3 Communications, which supplied the sensor systems.

The Icelandic Dash 8 Q300 is equipped with long range fuel and an auxiliary power unit, enabling it to perform missions of over 8 hours endurance. Field Aviation outfitted the aircraft with Maritime Search Radar, Side Looking Airborne Radar (SLAR) and an Electro-Optical /Infra-Red pod (FLIR). All sensors feed into an integrated data handling system supplied by L-3 Communications.

Field integrated the surveillance systems into the aircraft and designed, built and installed a new cabin interior. Field also designed and had approved an in-flight operable door, which allows crews to deploy location flares, paradrop personnel, oil sampling buoys and larger items such as inflatable rafts.

The Icelandic Dash 8 Q300 MSA has multi-mission capability, including search and rescue, maritime sovereignty, medevac and first response activities. Its speed and endurance will produce shorter transit times and more on-station capability in replacing the Icelandic Coast Guard’s current maritime aircraft. This will allow the Coast Guard to increase both environmental and fisheries surveillance, as well as to perform customs duties and border protection. The large cabin interior, coupled with the Q300’s proprietary active noise and vibration system will provide a comfortable, state-of-the-art working environment for the crews on board.

The Icelandic Coast Guard MSA has a configuration based on the Field Aviation modified Dash 8 Q300 MSA’s for the Swedish Coast Guard, which were delivered in 2008. The similarity of type and equipment will provide operational, maintenance, training and support synergies for both countries.

“Growing airborne surveillance requirements to protect our fisheries interests and to fight environmental pollution with a more suitable aircraft platform for the coming decades have made this replacement a necessity” said director general Larusson. “We are very impressed by the work that Field Aviation did for the Swedish Coast Guard MSAs, and this gave us confidence in trusting them to supply us with an MSA that would exceed our mission requirements”.

Field Aviation is a world leader in the adaptation and modification of commercial aircraft for special mission roles ranging from flight inspection to electronic surveillance and maritime patrol operation. Field Aviation modified MSAs have been ordered by six nations for use in providing domain awareness and the protection of national sovereignty [emphasis added].

They can't wrap their cases in an hour (less commercials)?

2009-07-04T11:04:00.002-04:00

The Canadian Bar Association has taken notice of the CF's Judge Advocate General in their June 2009 edition (pdf) of one of their professional publications.

Apparently, the life isn't exactly what we see David James Elliot and Catherine Bell improbably undertaking each week on our television sets. I'm shocked.

Although he spent time as an articling student in private practice at Smart & Biggar, he says joining JAG two and a half years ago was a better option for him.

“I enjoyed my experience when I was at Smart & Biggar. I found it very intellectually satisfying,” he says. “But at the end of the day, I had to ask myself, ‘Do I want to spend my career helping Nike sue Reebok, then Reebok sue Nike?’ I came to the answer, ‘No,’ that was not what I wanted to do. JAG ... offered a different type of career and a different type of opportunity.”

...

If you think billable-hour targets are stressful, consider the personal life of a JAG lawyer. “We truly are sort of an extended family, so when things aren’t going as well as you’d like, or there are injuries, it tends to take a toll,” says Siepka. “You don’t have to know the individual. It touches you every single time.”

...

“Show me another law firm where, as a lawyer, you can rotate through and do military justice, criminal law...helping the military police with their investigations, [and] giving them advice in that round,” Weaver points out. “It’s hard to get bored when every few years — to the extent that you choose and to the extent that JAG needs you — you literally change jobs to something completely different.”

“I joke around and say, ‘I’m a walking poster for the Canadian Forces,’” says Siepka. “But you know, I wake up in the morning and go, ‘I get to do what for a living?’ It really is that much fun.”

JAG has only 150 regular force and 60 reserve lawyers in its talent pool. With such a small organization, one of the big challenges they face is recruiting/retention balance and promotion. The bigger the numbers, the easier it is to adjust to variances in people targets. But with CF lawyers, if just a few more of them than expected take their retirement, it throws things into a bit of disarray.

Recruiting becomes an issue at that point. I know of an RMC grad who got his law degree after getting out of the CF, and looked at getting back into the JAG afterwards - just the sort of fellow they should be jumping to get. He was told they weren't recruiting. He settled into private practice and got a call six months later: we really need you!

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way, folks.

Having said that, I'm glad to see the legal profession shining a light on military lawyers. As a buddy of mine who's had to work closely with JAG advisors says with tongue planted firmly in cheek: "They may be *spit* lawyers, but they're OUR *spit* lawyers, by God!"

"On ANA officers and hope"

2009-07-03T16:08:00.002-04:00

Further to this post, more from BruceR at Flit:

Good post from yet another good ETT blog ["embedded tactical trainer" US term] here:

The bright spot is that the younger [ANA] officers I’ve worked with are much better than the older guys. Afghan Army officers basically come in three varieties: the older officers who were Russian-trained or influenced; the former mujahideen fighters/commanders; and the new, younger, American-trained generation. The former mujahideen fighters make pretty good officers and are revered by their men but don’t have the education or formal schooling and don’t listen to advice. The older officers, in the words of my best interpreter, a former ANA 1stSgt, “don’t ever want to leave the base” and have an excuse why they can’t do anything about their problems or act on our suggestions. The new generation of officers is much more willing to do operations, listen to our advice, and make some changes on the fly if need be, although they’re still somewhat afraid to make mistakes. Unfortunately, for now the power lies with that older group of officers. Hopefully, once the younger, American-trained generation comes of age, things will start changing rapidly for the better.

This is obviously every military mentor's hope, too. I'm skeptical. Something I read somewhere about hope and its relation to a plan.

Yes, no question, in the ANA you've got some very promising senior NCOs and lieutenants, some half decent captains and majors, and some truly awful colonels and generals. And that's before the new Western-trained officers from the new Afghan military college started rejoining the army this spring. Old people have to retire some time, so are things not looking up? Maybe this is just a matter of time?

But...

The trouble is that the ANA has systemic issues that are at least somewhat countervailing. To excel in the ANA today you have to have the attributes your superiors respect. At present in the ANA those include familial connections, a tolerance for senior-level graft, and risk aversion. Things useful to us -- like aggressiveness on the battlefield -- are not on their list. So those who rise rapidly in the ranks in the next couple years are going to have to, to some degree, incorporate those attributes, as well. Which doesn't mean they won't gradually get better as the years go by, but we shouldn't expect they'll get better at the same rate their senior officers get replaced, either, because those same senior officers are the ones picking their replacements.

Note also the use of an ex-ANA senior NCO as a terp. That, too, is unfortunately common. The literate and brainy soldiers, by picking up a little English, can go from $100 a month to $600, and still hang with their buds. Which is still helpful, sure: better for us they work with the army than an NGO. System-wide, it does tend to drain talent from the pool, though, and one suspects is acting to limit the number of actual ANA officers and senior NCOs we can converse with directly.

'Les Forces canadiennes, une «armée fantôme»'

2009-07-03T15:32:00.003-04:00

I wrote this at the end of a post a few days ago:

...while the Army certainly looks like being unable to continue the mission at the current tempo (more here), one could always refocus the military mission on, say, the Air Force (more here)...

That the Army is really tapped out is not news, but this story in Le Devoir puts flesh on the bones, as it were (via National Newswatch, with following Google translation):

The situation is "critical", "high risk" and "disturbing," according to the head of the Army

Ottawa - The pace of the mission in Afghanistan is too demanding for the officers and soldiers coaches of the land force, which prevents the Canadian military to train new recruits joining every year. All trainers are busy with experience in Afghanistan, so there is now a "shadow army" in Canada so there are holes in the military structure.

The report, Strategic Operations and Resource Plan 2008-09, reports the problems within the Army, the largest body of the Canadian Forces, with over 20 000 permanent military. Document over 60 pages was submitted a few months ago the Chief of Staff of the Canadian Forces, General Walt Natynczyk.

The facts are clear: Afghanistan absorbs best officers, who are deployed in Kandahar, and the best trainers for training before sending troops. The shortage is exacerbated by the large number of retirements among senior officers.

Result: lack of qualified personnel for training soldiers in Canada reduces the competence of the army as to the tasks that are not related to Afghanistan (for example, the defense of Canadian territory).

General Leslie uses the terms "ghost army" [hollow army] to describe the situation. The phenomenon of phantom army, which refers to the difference between necessary force and the force available, and the decrease in the number of coaches, officials and leaders of experience, has an important impact on our ability to generate and keep our troops ready for all eventualities. Therefore, we must classify it in the high risk "can be read at the beginning of the document.

General Andrew Leslie sounds the alarm and says it is impossible to combine the expansion of Canadian Forces mission in Afghanistan. The operations in this country in war are too heavy to bear in order to continue to recruit heavily.

"The Army does not have the structure nor the personnel to perform both the training of soldiers in the light of experience gained in Afghanistan and ensure the development of the Canadian Forces. Clearly, the "ghost army" is the most problematic issue of the land force, "one reads.

The Army has about 20 000 soldiers of the permanent force, plus several thousand reservists. However, 2100 soldiers of the land forces are deployed in Afghanistan every six months or a year in 4200. And there are all in training for deployment. The Army generates 80% of troops in Afghanistan, while the Navy provides 4% and the Air Force, 6%.

Five to ten years of problems

More than 7700 recruits have committed in the army in 2008-09. The increase was constant for three years. Generally, most new soldiers are choosing the Army, but the figures are not made public. All recruits have to undergo basic training, followed by specialization (gunner, gunner, driver, etc.)..

In its report, the boss of the Army states that "at least" seven years before a recruit can have enough leadership and experience to turn to teach other soldiers. "He [we] will take 5 to 10 years before being able to rebuild our driving force," wrote General Leslie.

Meanwhile, the ground force is greater reliance on private firms to train its soldiers (most of which make the work of former military) and to perform various tasks, especially in the field of civil engineering. Several Navy and Air Force also provide for temporary positions in the Army in Afghanistan, after a rigorous training.

But above all, the army is awaiting the end of the mission in Kandahar in 2011. The current pace of operations, caused primarily by operations in Afghanistan, is impossible to maintain for the land force since the phenomenon of" ghost army ", says Andrew Leslie.

The Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, recalled this week in New York, before the audience of the UN, as the date for the withdrawal of Canadian troops in July 2011, is firm [see Update here]...

Germans doing their bit for Afstan

2009-07-03T14:45:00.003-04:00

Further to this post, latest decisions by the Bundestag:

...
Despite the fact that the majority of Germans want their troops out of Afghanistan as soon as possible, Berlin is committing more not less soldiers and equipment to the NATO-led mission at a time when the US is ramping up its offensive in the country.

On Thursday, the German parliament voted with an overwhelming majority to send four AWACS surveillance aircraft to Afghanistan, accompanied by up to 300 Bundeswehr soldiers. A total of 461 of the 557 lawmakers in the Bundestag approved the extended mandate.

Chancellor Angela Merkel and her Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung also took pains to reiterate their support of the Afghanistan mission on Thursday. Speaking at the memorial service for three Bundeswehr soldiers who were killed by Taliban near Kunduz on June 23, Jung refused to name an exit date for the German mission [emphasis added].

The AWACS decision came after a long debate over the intended purpose of the deployment. While the German Defense Ministry insists that the aircraft will be used solely to regulate the increased air traffic over Afghanistan, critics warned that, with their capability of transferring digital images in real time, the planes are likely to end up steering combat operations [not that, for heaven's sake!]...

Roughly 3,700 German soldiers are currently stationed in the Hindu Kush, as part of the NATO-led peace-keeping force ISAF. Last October, the Bundestag voted to raise the maximum limit of the number of troops to 4,500...

Most German commentators on Friday praise both the Bundestag decision to extend the mandate and the American offensive...

Thank goodness for that.

Harper takes a salute

2009-07-03T13:26:00.002-04:00

There seems to be something of an uproar over the Prime Minister taking a salute on Parliament Hill this past Canada Day:

With this year’s Canada Day, it happened before the cameras were on, but Peter Mansbridge was sure to report on it – that upon his arrival on the Hill, Harper stood on the platform before the honour guard and was saluted. This is something that is generally reserved for the Governor General, because she is the Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces – not the Prime Minister.

But this has been happening at Remembrance Day celebrations for a few years now. Whereas it should be Her Excellency on the platform and the Prime Minister beside, Harper has made a point of standing on it with her, and in what is probably as much of an indictment, she’s allowed him to, in defiance of protocol.

Of course, Prime Ministers are entitled to a salute...

The current Canadian practice is to be found in the Canadian Forces Administration Orders (CFAO 61-8, mod 8/84).

Honours and salutes are accorded to the following dignitaries:

Heads of state;

The Queen's representatives in Canada

Members of reigning royal families

Heads of governments

Ambassadors and high commissioners accredited to Canada; and

Ministers of National Defence.

...

The Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence: a 19 rounds gun salute is fired for the Prime Minister and 17 for the Minister of National Defence when visiting a saluting station (but not more than once a year); full honours are given on occasions when the mounting of a guard of honour is warranted;

...

a 100 person guard is mounted for heads of state, The Queen's representatives in Canada, governors general of Commonwealth countries, members of reigning royal families;

a 50 person guard is mounted for heads of Government (including the Vice President of the United States), ministers of National Defence, heads of Mission accredited to Canada;

...

The initial salute varies according to the dignitaries:

The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh : "God Save The Queen" (in full);

Other members of the Royal Family: the first six bars of "God Save The Queen";

The Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors: the Vice Regal Salute (composed by the first six bars of "God Save The Queen" immediately followed by the first four and last four bars of "O Canada");

The Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence of Canada: the national anthem (in full);

Foreign heads of state, foreign heads of Government, members of foreign royal families, foreign ministers of National Defence, heads of Mission accredited to Canada: the national anthem of the country of origin.

...just not the same salute to which Governor Generals are entitled.

So that's the question: did the PM take a salute to which he wasn't entitled? I don't know for sure. But it looked to me like there were more than fifty soldiers in that honour guard.

If the PM is abrogating this longstanding Commonwealth military tradition, somebody within the chain of command should have the guts to tell him to stop. Ideally that would be the Governor General herself. But if she isn't willing to step up, the CDS should, with the same tone that an RSM would take with his or her CO - respectful, but not completely deferential.

This sort of symbology matters, especially in a country where so much of our political system rests upon precedent and tradition.

Thanks to Dawg for bringing it to my attention.

BZ Kevin D. Reed

2009-07-03T12:14:00.003-04:00

I always find it odd seeing civilians given a military rank, even if it is an honourary one. But in some cases, the honour is undoubtedly well-deserved and the uniform seems to just fit: such is the case with Honourary Lieutenant Colonel Kevin D. Reed.

(Now the news stories say this: "In December, Mr. Reed was made honorary lieutenant colonel of an army reserve unit in southwestern Ontario – the 31 Service Brigade." Unless I'm completely mistaken, there's no such unit. There's 31 Canadian Brigade Group, and within that brigade, there are three service battalions: 21 (Windsor), 22 (London), and 23 (Hamilton). I don't know how the honourary appointments are made in such a structure, so I can only assume he's somehow associated with one or more of these battalions. But enough nitpicking...)

There are quite a few reasons I'd say Reed seems to fit. This is a small but positive indicator:

Reed, meanwhile, will soon face his own test: an attempt to meet the army's physical fitness standard.

"I made the commitment to do my battle-fit testing," he said.

So is his financial backing of this effort to help reservists and potential civilian employers find a fit:

Civi-Side was conceived by 2nd Lt Ken Seville, a reservist with 23 (Hamilton) Svc Bn. Ken recruited Jamie Smith, a friend and web developer from McMaster University (where both graduated from) to be a technical partner. Initial seed funding for the prototype came from our incoming Honourary Lt. Col. Kevin Reed.

With that said, it's more important to explain why the service was conceived. Ken saw many of his reserve colleagues having their military career either hindered or shortened because they were working for civilian employers that weren't supportive of the reserve.

Ken did some research and found that 40% of the reserves were students. He realized that if a service existed that helped these student reservists find work with an employer that was reserve-friendly; many of them would progress further, and stay longer in the military. The necessary focus of civi-side.com was clear.

But the biggest reason is his obvious commitment to serving the military community. It's a concept lost on all too many scions of the business world. Reed has been the driving force behind a university scholarship program for the children of fallen CF members:

The itch he had to honour the sacrifices of Canadian Forces manifested itself in Project Hero: a new scholarship program that covers tuition for four years and residence fees for one year for the children of fallen soldiers.

The first scholarships will be offered to students who enroll this September at the University of Ottawa, University of Windsor, Memorial University and University of Calgary.

...

Mr. Reed, who founded several companies in Ontario, and is vice-chairman of Grey Horse Corp., a corporate trust firm, worked with retired general Rick Hillier to launch the scholarship program at Memorial University in Newfoundland and Labrador, where Mr. Hillier is chancellor.

From there, Mr. Reed brought the idea to Allan Rock, president of the University of Ottawa. The University of Windsor then came on board, and on Tuesday, the University of Calgary followed.

...

Mr. Reed said he knows of about 30 to 40 children of fallen soldiers in Canada ranging from babies to teenagers. He said a handful of them would be eligible for the scholarship this fall.Each university will cover the cost of undergraduate tuition and first-year residence fees for eligible students, and the number of scholarships awarded each year will depend on how many students qualify. Students must be 26 or under and Canadian citizens or permanent residents to apply.

Mr. Reed said he wants to bring the program to all Canadian universities.

“This is the least I can do and we can do as people who are proud to be Canadian,” he said. “We're the people who get to live under a blanket of freedom that the military lays out for us every day.”

Well done, sir. That's leadership.

Update: It's amazing the unexpected effects that can occur when someone leads...

"The Scholarship of Honour was created in recognition of all individuals who stand up for peace and freedom with courage and dedication," Wall said. "Our government is pleased to bestow this scholarship on Saskatchewan's returning soldiers, and the sons and daughters of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice."

The scholarship is for $5,000, provided in two $2,500 payments to all eligible candidates.

Eligible candidates will be assessed on the following criteria:

Current or past permanent residents of Saskatchewan;

Returning soldiers who actively served in military operations in the Canadian Forces after September 2001, or the spouse and/or children of severely injured or deceased soldiers who served after September 2001; and

Enrolled in a recognized Canadian post-secondary institution

Canadian Coast Guard for the North, not Navy

2009-07-03T10:41:00.005-04:00

The chairs (Liberal) of two Senate committees give their views:

Wrong decisions could sink Canada’s navy

By COLIN KENNY and BILL ROMPKEY

THERE are two very good reasons why military planners cannot afford to make mistakes when purchasing ships for Canada’s navy.

First, new ships are going to be at the heart of the kind of navy Canadians are going to need to negotiate the turbulent waters of international politics in the coming decade. Anyone who doesn’t think a robust navy is important to a nation’s political and economic influence is not paying attention to the way the world works.

Second, vessels are extremely expensive, and one or two procurement blunders could bankrupt plans to rehabilitate our navy, which is currently in danger of sailing toward irrelevance.

For those reasons, the strange goings-on at the Department of National Defence these days regarding two vital purchases has some close observers feeling a bit seasick.

The most obvious problem is with the announced purchase of three joint supply ships ["Joint Support Ships", actually]. That purchase has been on hold since bids came in that would have put the cost of the ships well beyond what the current government seems willing to pay for them.

These were supposed to be huge vessels that would play dual roles, replacing 40-year-old supply ships that provide ammunition and fuel for Canadian task force operations at sea as well as hauling vehicles and other equipment for Canadian land forces operating abroad. The standstill on this purchase threatens naval renewal.

But there is another dual-purpose vessel on the drawing board that is cause for concern — the planned purchase of six to eight naval patrol vessels to be used in the Arctic in the summer and fall and off Canada’s East and West coasts the rest of the year.

The Senate Committee on National Security and Defence has maintained for the past two years that the government’s plan to purchase these ships is wrong-headed for a number of reasons.

Now the Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans — in its new report Rising to the Arctic Challenge: Report on the Canadian Coast Guard — is also pointing to a better strategy for controlling Northern waters.

The Harper government, rightly seized with the issue of promoting Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic, has decided that the best way to do this would be to put these new patrol vessels under the control of the navy. They would also take on some Arctic responsibilities traditionally handled by the Canadian Coast Guard [icebreaking here].

The Fisheries and Oceans report points out, "The coast guard has far more experience and expertise in the North than the navy." It says that the coast guard should be outfitted with new icebreakers that might not be in the same league as the powerful Russian icebreaking fleet, but which would at least be more respectable than the ones we have now.

Canada’s current icebreaking fleet, the report points out, is long in the tooth and was designed to be used in the St. Lawrence River, not the Arctic Ocean. "Canada’s icebreaking fleet will not be adequate once shipping increases" (due to warming in Northern waters). Unfortunately, only one new icebreaker is being ordered ["The "Diefenbreaker"--in 2017!?!"], as the government focuses instead on the patrol vessels. Those patrol vessels, the Fisheries and Oceans report observes, will only be capable of breaking newly formed ice. Serious Arctic vessels must be capable of handling the harder, thicker multi-year ice that will continue to clog Arctic waters.

Furthermore, the report quotes Michael Turner, former acting commissioner of the coast guard, as saying that since the new ships would be of hybrid design, they would have "limited capability in open water." This obviously applies to both the Arctic and along Canada’s East and West coasts. Slow and lightly armed, the new ships are meant for "low threat" environments. They would be too weak for Northern work.

The Committee on National Security and Defence has argued in two reports that moving the navy into the Arctic will drain its effectiveness elsewhere, and that the navy does not have the competence that the coast guard possesses in the Arctic [see here and here].

It has further argued that the coast guard should be armed like the U.S. coast guard is armed. If the government wants guns on boats to make a point about sovereignty — which it obviously does — then arm the coast guard. The union representing coast guard employees is not against this, as long as officers and crews are properly trained and compensated.

Again, the Defence committee reports dovetail with the Fisheries and Oceans report, which recommends deploying multi-mission coast guard icebreakers "as a cost-effective alternative to Canada’s surveillance and sovereignty patrol needs in the Arctic."

In short, both the manning of these patrol vessels by navy officers and the purchase of the ships themselves would be a huge mistake — the kind of mistake a country with a limited military budget can’t afford to make. These patrol vessels wouldn’t even be fast enough to outrun speedy fishing vessels, which makes them of dubious use on the East and West coasts.

When two committees tell the government it needs to rethink its course in the Arctic, perhaps the government should show some signs that it is listening.

I agree with most of the above. However I do not think the Canadian Coast Guard itself needs to be armed. Armed RCMP or Fishery officers are now carried as necessary (as can be Navy personnel), and weapons such as machine guns can be temporarily mounted if needed. Heavier calibre weapons are not necessary. Canada is not going to assert its (dubious) sovereignty over the Northwest Passage by shooting explosive shells at foreign vessels but by maintaining a presence of government vessels, for which the Coast Guard is just fine.

The Harper government's insistence on using the military to assert sovereignty in the North is wrongheaded, especially as no country has any claim to our land there (Hans Island aside). Some earlier posts:

"Icebreakers best bet in Arctic"
The right approach to Arctic "sovereignty"
The icebreakers we should build
"A job for the Coast Guard"
What to do with the Canadian Coast Guard?
"Military should focus on coastline, not war: Layton"

Calgary: The Military Museums

2009-07-03T10:18:00.006-04:00

The website is here. A story from the Air Force:

New museum in Calgary tells story of Canada’s Air Force
July 2, 2009

The front hall of the Air Force Museum of Alberta in Calgary. The story of Canada's Air Force is illustrated from the beginning to today. Credit: Aaron Payton.

By Violette Stepaniuk

Seven years in the making, the Air Force Museum of Alberta in Calgary hopes to attract visitors through its innovative way of telling the history of Canada's Air Force.

"It's a museum designed to tell the history of the Royal Canadian and Canadian Air Force," says Mr. Gerry Morrison, chairman of the Air Force Museum Society of Alberta.

"It's done with a lot of very exciting graphics and audio-visual techniques - a film here or a touch screen here. It's interactive; it's not just looking at mannequins and a piece of metal or a gun. We've done it to make it exciting for the young people especially, but to tell the story."

The Air Force Museum is part of the newly expanded and renovated Military Museums, a 9,940-square-metre complex that also includes the Army Museum of Alberta, the Naval Museum of Alberta, four regimental museums (The Calgary Highlanders, The King's Own Calgary, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians)), W.A. Howard Library and J.A. Child Archives, the Discovery Centre (a computerized maze for students), and the Founders' Gallery.

The Air Force Museum has two theatres. The first one, housed in a model of a Second World War Nissen hut, shows a pre-mission bombing briefing. The other, the Hercules Theatre, is a to-scale model CC-130 Hercules interior that presents Canada's modern Air Force.

"Nowhere else in Alberta is the story of [Canada's] Air Force told chronologically, from the beginning up to today. And we felt that was important," said Mr. Morrison. "People should understand the contribution that the air force has made to Canada's and Alberta's history in the past 100 years. We start with the Silver Dart and the story of two airplanes going to Camp Borden, and we [go] right up to today."

The Air Force Museum had its own opening before the grand opening of The Military Museums complex.

"We opened on May 7 and that's when we honoured and thanked the donors," said Mr. Morrison, who added that more than $750,000 was raised for the project.

Her Royal Highness Sophie, Countess of Wessex, officially opened the expanded Military Museums and toured the new areas, including the Air Force gallery, on June 6.

"She was supposed to spend only nine minutes in the [Air Force] museum, but she spent 20," said Mr. Morrison. "She was interested in viewing the two feature videos we show in the Nissen Hut Theatre and the Hercules Theatre."

The Military Museums' $26.4 million expansion makes it one of the largest military museums in Canada.

For more information about the Air Force Museum and The Military Museums, visit www.themilitarymuseums.ca .

The Second World War graphic exhibits at the Air Force Museum of Alberta. Photo: Aaron Payton.
The Hercules Theatre of the Air Force Museum of Alberta is a mock up of the interior of a C-130 Hercules aircraft. Credit: Aaron Payton.

The Nissen Hut Theatre of the Air Force Museum of Alberta. Credit: Aaron Payton.

BGen Michael Jorgensen, Commander of Land Force Western Area, escorts HRH Sophie, Countess of Wessex, during her visit to The Military Museums in Calgary, Alta., which she officially opened on June 6, 2009. Credit: Julie Vincent Photography.