Does Canada Need a Military

Why does Canada have, or even need a military? After all we are an ocean away from Europe, and an even bigger ocean away from Asia.  We also have the biggest, badest , most militarized country in the world as our neighbour. Our southern Neighbour after all, has a military ten times larger than any other nation in the world, riff with the most powerful weapons on earth.  Surely no one will attack them, and therefore by extension, no one will attack Canada.  It’s simple logic. Of course, the U.S. has their enemies in the world while Canada has few if any. And, as the saying goes that “you are known by who you hang around with” So! do we really have nothing to worry about? Should we, or could we simply expect that the U.S. will, in their own interest protect Canada? Many Canadians seem to think so. But Canada does have enemies, China and Russia, and the U.S. all have their eyes on Canada’s arctic. The U.S. claims that the Northwest Passage is international waters, meaning that they and other nations can use it freely. Leaving Canada with no power to protect our northern environment, and no power to enforce shipping standards, leaving American and Russian and Chinese to freely play their nuclear cat and mouse games in our arctic. Close to home, depending on which direction U.S. politics take their approach to Canada can swing from great friend to mortal enemy within one presidential administration. Assuming that there will not be a Trump or even a Trumpier future president would be a mistake. Think of the strategic value of Canada’s massive amount of fresh water. Then think of western U.S. Drought conditions, and how a Trumpian U.S. president may react Thinking about Canada having the resources to defend itself isn’t foolish and it isn’t something to put off.

There are currently two visions in Canada for the country and our Military, ‘The Trudeau Vision’ and ‘The Greater Past Vision’. In this post We want to explain these two visions and propose a different forward looking vision called the ‘Canada True North Strong and Brave’

The Trudeau Vision

The Trudeau / Socialist vision strongly held by former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, and carried on by his son and many of today’s liberal and NDP voters. This vision sees Canada as a peace loving, planet worshiping, Utopia in progress. A Canada that doesn’t need a military and exists in order to teach all other countries, how to live in harmony with each other and with the planet, Supported by Canada’s leftist government subsidized media and socialist public unions, their position is that anything military is bad, and any social program, no matter how wasteful or inefficient is good. This of course is the model for every fictionalized version of the Avatar story, or every word of every song like “One Tin Soldier”. In every one of these Utopia stories, the people live in harmony, love each other, love nature, and cherish ‘Peace on Earth. And, in every one, some evil group, for whatever reason, attacks the peace loving people, and they all end up dead and their land destroyed. There is a reason that this world is only found in fantasy.  Because it only exists in fantasy. Evil exists. The people of Ukraine were living peacefully, until their more powerful neighbour elected a madman to lead them. Poland in the 1930s lived in Peace, and so did The Netherlands, Belgium, France, Greece, and Britain. The U.S. thought that they were immune to outside attack until November 1941. History shows that a country undefended soon becomes ruble, or someone else’s country.

Maybe the Trudeau followers think that Canada should emulate Iceland.  A country with a small population and no military at all.  Iceland has not had a standing army since 1869, Yet they are still a member of NATO, Protected by article 5, the agreement between NATO states that specifies that any member of NATO attacked means ALL members are attacked.

Then again Iceland is located in the strategically important GIUK (Greenland, Iceland,U.K.) Gap between Greenland and Britain. A unique strategic relevance that Canada doesn’t have. Iceland, an island country with only 382,000 inhabitants, who’s defence consists of a 200 person Crisis Response (expeditionary peacekeeping) Force, an armed Coast Guard, and a single Tactical Police Unit, had to pay a price for their special position in NATO. They had to Accept on their island, U.S. military bases.  A bilateral defence agreement in 1951 stipulated that the USA would make arrangements for the defence of Iceland on behalf of NATO in return for the establishment of U.S. military bases on the island. After the agreement Keflavík became a base for American forces. 

In the 1950s the U.S. Navy ordered the construction of a facility for storing nuclear depth bombs near the outskirts of Keflavik airport, although officially the U.S. says that they have never stored nuclear weapons in Iceland.

In 2016, the USA and Iceland signed a new joint declaration on security cooperation. This partly dealt with American deployments to support the NATO mission of ‘Iceland Air Policing’ (established in 2009). For which the US uses F-15C fighter jets. 

In the last four or five years, American B-52, B-1B, and B-2 strategic bombers have operated in Icelandic airspace, and B-2s have been temporarily stationed in Keflavík. The US also uses this air station to deploy P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft in the North Atlantic

Icelanders in general have found the presence of a foreign military force painful. The issue, although political has never involved deep anti‐Americanism, but rather a concern among Iceland’s people for their cultural identity against a seductive Americanized tide of drugs, music styles and manners.¹.

Maybe for the Canadian socialist set, surrendering Canada’s Sovereignty through U.S. military occupation is an acceptable price for their feeling of security while also maintaining their feeling of superiority. It’s true that Canada is already inundated with American culture. There is even some imported right wing racism and bigotry, but Canada isn’t the U.S. and surrendering our Sovereignty cannot ever be negotiable

The ‘Greater Past’ Vision

The second vision for Canada’s military, “The Greater Past” vision looks back to the Canada of 1911 through 1915 or 1937 through 1969. Times when Canada’s military and the whole country was focused on protecting our land and the freedom of our European allies.  When Canada had a navy with aircraft carriers, light cruisers, destroyers and submarines.  When the RCAF had bases protecting Europe and flew some of the best all weather interceptor aircraft available. When Canada’s government insisted that Canadian fighter jets were built in Canada and when some of the best fighter jets flying were built in Canada. A time when Canada had the strength to backup our government’s words. Such as, when Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson’s leadership affected the 1956 Suez Crisis  and when Canada’s role in the UN Emergency (Peacekeeping) Forces he helped create became, for 80 years what Canadians have consider part of the country’s identity.

NORAD being the first. If you maintain the belief that in some way Canada needs the United States to help protect us or if we have a Government that doesn’t want Canada to have to pay for our own defence then being involved in NORAD applies. But if Canada is going to defend itself, Period! Then we don’t need NORAD. This of course means we protect our own Atlantic, Pacific and northern shores with our own planes, our own ships, Canadian radar, Canadian satellites, and Canadian under sea resources. But it also means true sovereignty. Cooperation yes, dependance or subjugation NO!

WHAT DO CANADA AND THE U.S. GET FROM NORAD

A look at a NORAD map gives a pretty clear picture of how it works and who benefits. In Canada’s far north and on Canada’s east and west coast is the forward defence line. Anyone who has ever watched a war movie knows that the forward defence line always gets overrun, and the call to “fall back” prevails. So where does NORAD ‘fall back’ to? Canada! and our country then becomes the battle ground while the U.S. musters their great defence or decides to use their nuclear weapons. The U.S. gets saved, Canada gets annihilated. NORAD is designed for Canada to be the battleground.

NORAD Map

The U.S. will protect Canada?

Current U.S. policy directs the American military not to defend Canada if it is targeted in a ballistic missile attack, says the top Canadian officer at the North American Aerospace Defence Command.
“We’re being told in Colorado Springs that the extant U.S. policy is not to defend Canada,”
“That is the policy that’s stated to us. So that’s the fact that I can bring to the table.”

Lt.-Gen. Pierre St-Amand, deputy commander of Colorado-based Norad.

Globe and mail 2017

The second on Canada’s list of unnecessary responsibilities is the U.N. This is not to say that Canada should leave the U.N.,but Canada’s level of involvement there is not tied to any Guarantee. Our involvement can, and should be aligned with Canada’s interests and objectives. Canada’s influence at the U.N. should be determined by our actions and not through political posturing and the quality of the parties we throw. Canada’s contributions to the U.N. need not include contributing to despots and leaders of countries who do not prescribe to the same values and norms that Canadians do. We don’t need to support socially convenient views in order to get support or approval. Canada can do and support what is in our interest and what is consistent with our values. If that means that membership votes don’t agree with us, or go our way, so be it.

NATO, other Allies in the Asia Pacific, and the Commonwealth, (particularly Britain, Australia and New Zealand) are a different story. These are our allies, and our friends. If Canada expects them to support us, then we must support them. Our links to these organizations are more than defence related, we are politically, economically, socially, ethically and morally connected as well. These are the nations with whom Canada should be trying to build closer relationships, particularly those nations with similar strategic interests, like those with interests in the Arctic, or those with mutually beneficial trade interests.

So what should a Canada centric Military look like? To answer this question, first you must view Canada, not as the huge top half of North America, but as a stand alone country. Picture a map where Canada has no southern border, try to see it more like Australia.

In that view, Canada has four directions that need defence. We need defence against threats from the north, the west, the east and the south. Just a reminder, the only time Canada was ever invaded it was from the south.

Realistically, even on this fictitious map, Canada’s primary security concern would be the north. Our eastern, western and southern concerns are more related to access to trade and freedom and defence of sea and transportation lanes. This leads into Canada’s role in mutual defence with our allies

An interesting comparison would be for Canada to look very closely at Sweden. A country with a small population, but a country that has excelled at the effective use of their defence budget and has produced world class home grown weapons systems. Recently becoming a NATO member, Sweden joined as a welcomed partner because of their first class military and innovative military equipment. Canada could not do better than to emulate Sweden and develop strategic defence partnerships with them. Sweden has excellent Submarines, surface warships, artillery and fighter plans that Canada could benefit from. More importantly, Canada could benefit from their imaginative and practical approach to their own defence, building defence systems that work for them, in their environment and within their means. Canada’s landscape closely resembles Sweden except much larger. Canada could adopt many of Swedens military equipment directly, and/or develop joint projects with them.

The North

Defence of Canada’s north is our number one interest, or should be. As the climate changes and the sea ice melts, the north will become simultaneously a land of enormous potential in resources, transportation access, and development, and a dangerous land of political power struggles and intrigue.

Defence of our Northern coast and our arctic waters will require ships, submarines, surveillance systems of all kinds as well as active defensive and offensive capabilities. Canada needs to establish dominance over our northern islands and the Northwest Passage. Canada must establishment permanent Coast Guard or naval bases along its routs, ideally located adjacent to Inuit Communities, manned by Inuit peoples and overseen by the territorial governments. Along with the security benefits this plan would provide infrastructure, economic benefits, and jobs for the northern peoples.

Along with the development of northern security, additional Canadian strategic defence forces should be established at Churchill, Yellowknife and Whitehorse with forward air defence at Yellowknife and Whitehorse and Forward Naval assets, including under ice capable submarines at Churchill.

The Oceans

As well as the North, Canada has both an Atlantic and Pacific Coast, and it has naval defence responsibilities for both. Canada does not have the economy to build a U.S. Navy or even a Royal Navy sized fleet. Therefore our nation must use dollars and resources wisely. In this regard, it makes little sense for Canada to spend 100 Billion dollars on a few large navy frigates. Here, there may be an argument for Canada to revert back to its ‘Greater Past’. During WW II, Canada had a large navy, but they were smaller nimbler, cheaper, but effective warships. Canadian Corvettes played important roles in the allied victory in the last great war, and maybe Canadian Corvettes are the answer today. Instead of 150 meter, multi billion dollar warships, with crews of 200 plus, Canada should be building 110 Meter warships with 60 person crews, but many more of them. We aren’t talking here about coastal patrol ships. We’re talking blue water combat ships armed to address submarines, aircraft, other warships and land targets. Since Canada hasn’t built any of their Great New Frigates yet, here is another option. Join with Sweden in building their new Luleå class corvette. The Luleå Class are the follow on ships to the Visby Class, the ships currently considered the best Corvette sized ship on the ocean. The Visby class corvettes cost 184 million U.S. dollars compared to Canada’s planned 1.96 Billion dollar Frigates. For the cost of one frigate Canada can buy 10 Visby class corvettes or probably several Luleå class Corvettes. Thus providing Canada with more ships, with much smaller crews, and lower operating costs. If absolutely necessary, Canada could augment the Corvettes with a very limited number of the flashy, expensive Frigates.

Visby Class Corvette. ( wikipedia) – Cost 184 million $U.S.

• Speed 35 knots (65 km/h; 40 mph)+
  Range -2,500 nmi (4,600 km; 2,900 mi) at 15 kn (28 km/h; 17 mph)
  Complement – 43
• Saab Sea GIRAFFE and AMB 3D PESA surveillance radar
• Saab Ceros 200 stealth  system
• Condor CS-3701 tactical radar surveillance system
• GDC Hull mounted variable depth sonar
• Hydroscience Technologies towed array sonar system
• GDC variable depth sonar
• 1 × Bofors 57 mm (2.2 in) Mk3 gun
• 8 × RBS15 Mk2 anti-ship missiles
• 4 × 400 mm (16 in) torpedo launchers for Torped 45 torpedoes
• CAMM anti-air missiles
• ASW 127 mm (5.0 in) rocket-powered grenade launchers
• Mines and depth charges
• AW109 helicopter pad (NOTE: the Luleå Class is expected to have a helicopter hanger)

NOTE: Russia currently has the most corvettes in service with 83 units. China currently is developing a new small Frigate which closely resembles Visby, but is slightly larger as is Sweden’s new Luleå class.

Corvette Rational

Corvettes make sense if five conditions are considered. First, Canada’s planned Frigates are designed, and their stated purpose is, to help protect Aircraft carrier battle groups. Canada does not have any Aircraft Carriers, so whose ships are we paying to protect and why? Secondly, the war in Ukraine has shown that large surface ships are already at risk from drones of all kinds and current technological developments such as submarine launched , and new autonomous drones are going to add to this risk . Smaller, stealthier and faster ships will perform better in this environment. It is harder to hit a ship going 60 kph than one going 24 or 28kph. Third, large ships require large crews, large maintenance and large operational costs. Corvettes are smaller, have much smaller crews and generally are cheaper to operate. Considering that Canada already has an enlistment and retention problem, smaller ships mean more deployments, more advancement opportunities for crew members, and more opportunities for the more interesting, higher skilled, higher paying jobs. Fourth, Corvettes are big enough to have anti-air, anti-ship, anti-submarine and anti-ground weapons and to deploy surface, undersea and arial drones for both offensive and defensive purposes. And Finally Corvettes are small enough to be built at far more of Canada’s ship building sites. Canada currently has 10 potential shipbuilders who could participate in the Building of Corvettes.¹

Submarines

The Canadian government is talking about submarines (again). Hopefully something concrete will result. 12 submarines for Canada is a no-brainer in any rational though process, but with the Canadian Government, (Who Knows?). If 12 submarines do get built they should be based with 4 each, on the east and west coast, and 4 at a new naval base at Churchill Manitoba tasked with northern patrols.

A Rational RCN Fleet

An optimal Canadian Fleet would deploy on each coast – 0-4 Frigates ( Ideally no Frigates and more corvettes) , 10-14 Corvettes, 2 AOPS ships, 4 submarines, 1-2 replenishment ships (see note), and assorted coastal patrol and training ships. A new base at Churchill, Mn. tasked with northern defence should be the home port for two navy AOPS ships, two Coast Guard AOPS ships, 4 submarines and at least 2 medium sized Coast Guard icebreakers and 1 very large Coast Guard icebreaker. Thus providing an effective coastal defence on all of Canada’s coasts.

NOTE that Canada is building two replenishment ships and has the MV Asterix, a converted cargo ship, currently deployed in this role. Building a second, converted replenishment ship like Asterix would provide greater fleet flexibility on both coasts.

Defence of Canada’s airspace

While Canada’s coasts are huge our airspace is even larger. Therefore an independent, made in Canada, Canadian Air defence strategy must be bigger, smarter and more effective than what is currently planned. Canada currently has 88 American F35s ordered. For this review the first recommendation to be made is to cancel that order . The American military industrial juggernaut backed by their government have made the F35 the only choice. They obviously used their industrial and political might to impose their wishes. But rational thought poses another perspective. Canada has a huge amount of airspace to manage, and international responsibilities as well as a limited budget to do it with. The Saab Gripen fighter was designed and built to do two things. Fight Russian jets and work from widely dispersed airfields, If Canada took advantage of that second of Saabs strengths and used airfields in any northern town with a useable runway as a potential remote intercept base, Canadian Fighter jets could be available whenever and wherever Canadian airspace is threatened. Five squadrons or 125 aircraft, located in Cold Lake, Bagotville, Whitehorse,Yukon, Yellowknife NWT, and Coral Harbour Nunavut, supplemented by an additional 50, or 2 squadrons of cheaper high quality 4th generation fighter jets tasked with ground attack duties, this would give Canada a modern, made for Canada airforce

Ground Support

Rapid Aerial Ground Support for Canada’s military has consistently been a shortcoming for our military. Dedicated ground attack aircraft are essential if we are going to provide our forces with adequate support. As in the post war era of the 1950 and 1960s when Canada took seriously our commitments to European Allies as well as Canadian defence, we regularly maintained more than one type of fighter aircraft. and at that time the government of Canada expected to build those planes in Canada. Building Canada’s Air defence Aircraft in Canada would benefit Canada’s economy, benefit our strategic security, create jobs, and develop a key technology that would lay the groundwork for Canada to develop our own future iterations of these aircraft. Saab has already offered to build Gripen fighter aircraft in Canada. A deal to build F16s, A10s or another dedicated ground-attack variant should also be feasible

Canadian Fighters Previously Built in Canada

• F5 Freedom fighters – Ground attack aircraft. – 133
• CF 100 Canuck – all weather interceptor – 692. – Considered the Best interceptor in Europe in its day
• CF 86 Saber Jet – Fighter Interceptor. – 1,184 – Canadair F86 was considered the best version ever built
• CF 104 Starfighter – – 200. – Nuclear Strike, Intercept and ground attack fighter

Coral Harbour

Coral Harbour is located on Southampton Island in the north of Hudson Bay, near the mouth of the Northwest Passage. Locating an airbase here is not a new or radical Idea. During WWII, the U.S. Airforce maintained an Airbase here.

Drones

Canada recently announced the purchase of , armed, unmanned, surveillance drones. These resources have long been needed by Canada’s military, but the ones purchased are useless for monitoring Canada’s airspace. The predator drones purchased have a range of about 500 km. which means that they would reach only about half way between Yellowknife and Cambridge Bay and not anywhere close to Canada’s north most islands Canada needs surveillance drones with capabilities like the Global hawk with its 22,780 Km range. The predators may be beneficial in a tactical theatre, but they are useless for monitoring Canada’s skies. Proper surveillance drones must be able to fly the width of Canada. A proposed route would be from Happy Valley/ Goose Bay to Prince Rupert. Drones with this capability, plus manned surveillance flights plus Canadian control and development of the northern and coastal radar and satellite networks, would be the only adequate protection for the sovereignty of Canada’s skies.

A Rational Canadian RCAF Air Defence Deployment

A rational Canadian air defence plan would require deployment of air defence assets farther north. Three logical interceptor base locations would be Yellowknife, Whitehorse, and Coral Harbour, with dispersed assets across the north These far flung locations would put intercept aircraft close enough to any interdiction routes to actually deter incursions into our arctic. Coral Harbour may seem an odd choice, but it actually has a history as an American Airbase during WW II. A Coral Harbour airbase also fits well into a RCN presence in Churchill putting supply nearby.

Structurally, squadrons would be based in Yellowknife,Whitehorse, and Coral Harbour, while the second type of Canadian fighter would fly out of Cold Lake and Bagotville

Fighter Pilot Training

The RCAF has two additional problems, pilot training and pilot retention. To address these the RCAF must move Pilot training closer to urban areas. Advanced pilot training at Cold Lake and Bagotville still makes sense, but early training could be moved to more urban areas such as Hamilton Ontario, Calgary, Alberta and Longueuil., PQ. These three locations could also become RCAF Reserve bases, giving RCAF pilots who move to civilian careers the opportunity to remain in reserve service and stay proficient in their flying skills

This plan means more planes, but if Canada is going to protect our own sovereignty there is going to be a cost.

Canada’s Land Defence

If Canada is going to become serious about defending our Sovereignty, defending Canadian soil, as well as showing up and providing an effective contribution to our allies, Canada must be visibly see to act. The Canadian people see Canada’s military responsibilities in two ways, but Canada has met neither of those expectations. Canadians expect Canada’s armed forces to have the resources to protect Canadians from foreign actors, both through home grown defence and through cooperative action with our Allies, but there is also an expectation that our military will protect our towns, our homes and our livelihoods from natural disasters. The land forces in particular have always tried to provide both of these functions, but they have never done either particularly well. The current dismal shape of our Army’s equipment, moral, force retention, and leadership problems reinforce the issues with the first, and the amateur, part time attitude when conducting the second expectation supports the later. Canada’s soldiers inevitably pitch in when floods, forest fires, or storms devastate Canada’s people. But it is clear that the efforts are a part time exercise and not their role. Military personnel are not equipped, trained, nor do they have the leadership for these activities. For this reason , this paper describes a Canadian Armed Forces Land Force with two distinct functions. A Defence Force and a Disaster Relief Force

Defence Force

Canada’s Defence Force would be a Typical Combat Army force with Canadian defence and International Expeditionary Force responsibilities. In this force, Canada needs to deploy, at least, three full Mechanized Brigade Groups, plus one brigade group made up of Reserve units, and one Air Assault battalion

Each Brigade should be made up of an Armoured Regiment, with updated tanks, two fully equipped Mechanized Infantry Battalions, one Light Infantry Battalion, A Combat Engineering Regiment, An Artillery Regiment with Mobile Artillery, a mobile Anti Aircraft Regiment, a Service Battalion, and a Headquarters

Disaster Relief Force

The Disaster Relief forces of the Canadian Armed forces will maintain military command structure and must include two components. First, a force focused on prevention, similar to the U,S. corps of engineers. This group would work full time with municipalities on mitigating threats from both forest fires and floods. The second force would include forces trained and equipped to build disaster mitigation projects, fight fires and address flooding

The Disaster relief force could be one or two Brigade sized forces, made up of regiment sized units designated to specific disaster types and defence actions. These regiments will be reserve units filling the spaces of disbanded reserve regiments. These units may also be considered secondary reserves for the Combat Army.

Disaster Relief Structure

Each province will have one to three DR Regiments designated as Disaster Engineering Regiments. These units will work with communities as advisors in efforts to develop plans to prevent fooding and or fires. Other DR Regiments will have be trained and equipped with skills and equipment to clear land, develop marsh spaces, build temporary dams, fight forest fires, and build water retaining walls

Equipment

DR regiments will require, heavy equipment (bulldozers, excavators, front end loaders, dump trucks fire engines, heavy pump trucks automated sand bag filling equipment and flood containment equipment

Air Assets

In addition, the DR Force will have two dedicated water bomber Squadrons manned by RCAF reservists. One squadron will be located in Quebec and one in Saskatchewan each with 20 CL214 Canadair water bombers and four dedicated spotter planes. These aircraft can also support search and rescue operations.

Summary

Suggested ideas in this Paper

• New Navy/Coast Guard base in Churchill Man with Northern defence and Sovereignty protection responsibility. Assets include 4 air-independent, under-ice capable submarines, 2 Navy AOPS ships, 2 Coast Guard AOPS ships 2 medium Icebreakers and 1 Large Icebreaker
• Cancellation of all or most of the planned CSC Frigates and build instead up to 28 new Corvette sized ships
• Cancellation of F35 purchase and instead purchase Gripen ‘E’ fighters to be built in Canada
• Create RCAF bases in Whitehorse, Yellowknife and Coral Harbour Nunavut
• Use the Gripen’s design advantages to create widely dispersed assets across the north and the two coasts
• Purchase of 2 squadrons of dedicated ground attack aircraft assigned to support ground forces
• Purchase of long range drones that can cover the width of Canada
• Move pilot training and reserve bases close to urban locations in order to retain pilots and maintain pilot skills.
• Create three regular army and one reserve, brigade sized battle groups, with modern mobile artillery and mobile air defence capabilities.
• 1-2 Brigade sized organizations within the Canadian Army tasked with disaster mitigation and disaster response
• Regiment sized units spread across Canada, some with disaster mitigation engineering responsibilities and others equipped to address, forest fires, floods or storm damage

This paper is not a plan or predictor. If we were making predictions here they would be that Canada’s government will either do nothing or they will make statements that they have great plans to do something and will then, after decades of delay, do nothing. This is not very positive and it is not meant to be. Canada’s government’s approach to our military has always been dismal and there is really no reason to expect any change, BUT, if Canadians put some thought into the defence of Canada, particularly our north and if that thought is of aCanada as a real Sovereign Country, meaning ( NOT AN AMERICAN VASSAL STATE), then we may get our government to do their job.

1. https://www.trusteddocks.com/catalog/country/41-canada ↩︎