lenaitch
Senior Member
[/QUOTE]Broadly, we need a real rethink on force design going forward. Artillery is just one piece. It also baffles me, for example, why an air force of 20k operates four different types of helicopters including the spectacularly useless Griffon, a helicopter that is too big to scout, and too underpowered to really lift much, too slow to escort a Chinook, and too small to even lift a full infantry section.
Moving forward, not only do we need to rethink the needed capabilities, but there needs to be serious thought given to synergies and efficiencies.
I've talked about on the first page. I'm a big fan of what the US Marine Corps is doing with Force Design 2030 [PDF warning]. It is, undoubtedly, very controversial. No tanks. Less infantry. Less artillery. More sensors. More missiles. It's a force that is designed to move quickly, strike and leave. It's not a force designed to fight in long wars of occupation.
Promo video of the rationale here:
Good video explaining the changes here:
The advantage the USMC has is it has the other services to fill in gaps. We would have to do a kinda-sorta transformation, keeping in mind the other things our military is expected to still do (long range surveillance, strategic lift, maritime, etc., but generally, I agree.
I'm not sure I would agree. I'm not convinced 'most Canadians' give our military a second thought except when they read about a domestic deployment or the latest scandal. When they do think about the military, many still think in terms of 'peace keeping'. The majority of Canadians would not encounter a military member, facility or piece of equipment in their lifetimes.I think we should copy this model. It's closer to what most Canadians envision our military doing and would let us actually develop higher competency in some niches.