Derek 2.0

No, I never said additional costs outside the already budgeted Operations budget didn't occur............but of course, that is not the issue, the issue is your whinging over the RCAF not receiving additional money form some mythical fund, instead of using their already funded Operations budget.......

We purchased live munitions years ago and have based Canadian personal in bases built and paid for by the Arabs after the First gulf war..........I think you should give it up.

No, its from data complied from several years previous......... I know......and MAISR we fill both requirements....... Yes, I do........as I know operating costs, performance data and procurement costs...... Not at all, as I realize the reasons for changing said plans. Well no, it wouldn't, as it would cost money to operate, require crews and doesn't suit our needs........and being a lemon is a factor too. Funny, and I thought in the real world the Australians have a whole host of procurement scandals and a retention problem forces wide........ I'm sorry that you're ignorant on the subject and forced to repeat skewed talking points of the Official Opposition........

Took money from what? Prior to the Iraq mission, do you think the RCAF intended to keep the Hornets on the ramp for the year? Not burn fuel? Not perform maintenance? Not pay the aircrew etc? I understand the the topic, clearly you don't have a clue..........

Why? The PBO report you cited is dated. Other uses like what? Not being able to use them domestically would have been a scandal........I'll ask again, why would you have the Government spend several billion dollars on UAV that we couldn't even use at home, namely in the North, as was their primary intended purpose? Huh? You'd have the RCAF no longer able to deploy rescue boats or survival packages out the back of the aircraft, like we do currently.........as I said, you have not a clue to the current and future requirements of FWSAR. Ahh no I'm not......your dated link doesn't jibe with the last months updated letter of interest page....... Buying them what? The over priced junk that I cited? So you would have Canada purchase a broken RFA LSD, that once fixed, wouldn't suit our requirements for a "BHS"? Nor does the RAN, as demonstrated by the RAN having a much smaller and less capable surface fleet......of course, in the real world, money doesn't grow on trees........... I dare you to tell a Canadian Afghan vet we're a laggard within NATO...........

From the annual operations budget......

Why do we need to spend $3 billion a year now? You would have the Government purchase UAVs that we would be unable to operate in Canadian airspace? Or could it be that only one contractor offered a product that met the RCAF's requirements.........a pressurized cabin, than a human can stand fully erect in with a rear ramp might sound like a Government trick to the ignorant masses, but sure seems important to the RCAF......... No it wasn't, the original plan called for a portion of the fleet to be replaced by UAVs, instead more of the existing fleet was upgraded and additional aircraft will be purchased under MAISR...... Right, but then you suggested the Australians are a beacon of enlightenment....... What LPDs? The old American tank landing ships they spent a fortune on that never worked or the used RFA LSD they purchased used and has had nothing but engine and electrical problems? We could have LHDs too mind you within the current budget framework, but of course, we'd need to sacrifice 1/3rd of our surface fleet, well operating far less capable and smaller frigates......... So? You've suggested the RAN was the one to emulate, they haven't had viable DDGs since the 1980s, likewise the RN only recently replacing their type 42 class, that was also obsolete by the early 90s..........Since there is no realistic way we could have produced new DDGs earlier, you'd have the RCN continue to operate the obsolete and clapped out 280s? And who cares if we're leasing AORs? It doesn't effect mission readiness........ Good, you haven't demonstrated a reason as to why it should be increased.

Right, and they did, so the problem is what? Are the squadrons at home holding bake sales and car washes to meet our NORAD requirements?

No you didn't, and no, you are lost on this topic........Explain how the ISIL mission eating the Operations budget was a bad thing........money allocated for operating Hornets at home being used to operate Hornets overseas is a bad thing why?

What hole? It shows funding increasing more than addressing the very shortfalls the PBO highlighted last year........ Long term when many of the technical hurdles associated with operating UAVs in Canadian airspace has been addressed, instead favoring a proven, manned option........ How did they "bungle" it? By the Official Opposition quashing the first contract or several bidders threatening legal action? .....once the CP-140s start to retire in the later 2020s.......the just completed upgrade programs began in the 90s........as I said, there isn't a giant military version of Walmart out there........ You're out of touch of reality........using Australia since you cited them, the RAN retired HMAS Perth in 1999 (then ~35 years old and decades since obsolete) to be replaced by HMAS Hobart in ~2017-2018.....of course the RAN DDG program is expected to be a billion USD over budget and reduced to three destroyers instead of 4........nearly 20 years later........producing a design born in the later 90s later this decade....... Versus the Canadian program that will see upwards of 15 modern vessels procured starting the early 2020s, with the only capability gap caused by unexpected accidents that forced the early retirements of the 280s We've bungled our procurement and Australia is the shining beacon leading the way forward? Let me know the color of the sky in your world....... What capability are they getting that we aren't? What "massive holes"? UNREP shortfalls have been addressed in the short-medium-long term and the 280s were obsolete in the 1990s..... Good thing DND's budget is increasing each year until it reaches 30+ billion annually then.......

Again, you're avoiding the question.........

Well no, you don't, as made evident by the cited graph..... What UAVs? You mean the past program that looked at purchasing Global Hawks, the same Global Hawks the USAF found problematic and has put in storage, and DND altered said program to include an equal number of manned aircraft, and there is an evaluation of to contenders ongoing? FWSAR? The same program that well in a Minority Government, the Opposition accused the Government of sole sourcing a contract for C-27s, forcing the Government/RCAF to rewrite said requirements so aircraft produced in Canada could also get in on the process? That FWSAR program? And what cancelled maritime aircraft? The CP-140s will carry on out to the 2020s/2030s as planned, hence both the (now completed) AIMP & ASLEP programs.... Shipbuilding was delayed due to lack of vision on the part of the Government? (I won't respond here as I'm still waiting for your response in the shipbuilding thread where you and Argus made the same unfounded charge) They RAAF purchases have come at the expense of a diminished rotary component for their army.......and their ship building programs, Collins class and Hobart class (and their decades long ordeal with Amphibious lift), aren't paths to be followed........ Now mooted by the retirement of the DDGs and AORs......... Not even in the same league today as the force were through the 70s to the early 2000s........

Huh? The Government adds additional funds, over and above the existing Operations budget and its a failure? And of the three examples you cited, which missions overran the Operations budget? You're not answering the question, for what reason I don't (I would assume because you don't grasp the concept), instead parrot talking points......

Here's another one, Liberal backer and mayor of Oakville Ont compares retired vets at CPC rallies to the Nazi's Brownshirts.....

Sure, and your point? You're banging on about a PBO report from 2014, released months prior to the long term funding announcement....do you understand that? What things and what failure? Who cares what they spend, they've shown clearly that throwing more money at problems isn't always a solution. Or a testament to the RCN's decades long commitment to the GWOT.........of which strained the navy of both people and resources. You realize you're comparing today's forces condition to those of the 90s........that is laughable

And what amount was over and above the already budgeted Operations budget?

So the PBO suggest the Forces require $24 billion, and the graph I provided (current as of May 2015) that demonstrates the budget elevator for the Forces that brings them to ~$25 billion by the end of this decade and over $30 billion by the end of the next is a cut? You're dodging the question......what would the forces do with today with funding earmarked for programs that are not ready to be purchased? Collins class, DDG (both capability gap from the previous class and current overruns and delays), NH90 problems and their own MHP disaster the Sea Sprite.......that Australia? I'm including Huron.......and no, these things weren't a reality before, as reduce training time is a reflection of a decade of deployments and the frigates undergoing FELEX....... You mean flight training was down over the last several years when the Hornets have been on several deployments and finalized the IMP program? I'm shocked!!!

Cause confusion? The statement is very clear, if the forces aren't spending the dollar figure budgeted for "regular operations" because a given unit is deployed overseas, what do you think happens to said budgeted amount for "regular operations"? Very simple concept.........

So its baseless. To small for what? It exceeds the gap.......and why would you have the Government allocate funding for items today when we have no plans to purchase said items for several years+ DND doesn't have a piggybank, what they don't spend is returned.......... Name one. Of course they've reduced flight training and sailing time, we've retired 5 surface vessels and have aircraft deployed on operation in Iraq and Europe.......are you suggesting those overseas on operations aren't receiving training? I'm shocked!!!! Not a deflection at all, but reality......most veterans major health concern is hearing loss.

Please go own, as I've never been apart of an allocation and budgeting process at a unit (squadron) level........so, explain the things the forces to regularly over and over again...........humor me. Using the current operation in Iraq for an example, if the RCAF budgeted x millions of dollars to fuel, maintain etc 2 CP-140s for a fiscal year, assuming said CP-140s would "do things regularly", but said two CP-140s were sent to Iraq, what do you think comes of the money that was earmarked to do things regularly out of Comox or Greenwood? Furthermore, if CSOR budgeted x for y number of operators at home for training etc, but instead, said forces were sent to Iraq, what do you think happens to money earmarked for training operators no longer in need of it?

Ahh so you admit your NDP ~20% budget increase was a baseless rumor..........like I was saying. As I said, its dependent on both size and scope........if an operations fits within the the operations budget, why would we fund it from a differing budget with new money? Dated source..........as of May of this year: Its not an excuse, but reality, something your devoid off......believe me or not, DND can't just go down to the local defense store and come home with new tanks, planes and ships So by eliminating Afghan pre-deployment training the military isn't training for likely threats? I have no idea.......not as much as on hearing aides and batteries.

What is the difference between an operation and mission?

What do you feel the purpose of DND's annual Operations budget?

Then call me strange, since I'm of the mind party policy isn't fact until stated as such, versus baseless rumor That's dependent on size/scope of the mission.........funding operations out of DND's annual operations budget only makes sense.. What shortfall? Reread your article: DND returns money every year...... They aren't ready for likely threats? You're not suggesting the forces will be going back to the Afghan dirt-box are you? How many Afghan vets versus Korean/WW II vets?

I never said it was. Source? Source? (But I wouldn't be the least surprised)