Harper announces 20-year

[jdobbin]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/05/12/canada-first.html

The Tory government announced a multi-billion-dollar 20-year plan to strengthen Canada's military, which includes the purchase of new aircraft, armoured vehicles, ships and helicopters and a goal to expand the Forces to 100,000.

Referring to it as the "Canada First Defence Strategy," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the long-term investments in the military could reach costs of up to $30 billion.

"If a country wants to be taken seriously in the world, it must have the capacity to act. It's that simple," Harper said Monday speaking in Halifax. "Otherwise you forfeit your right to be a player. You're the one chattering on the sideline that everyone’s smiles at, but no one listens to."

Harper said this strategy will focus on replacing some of the military's core equipment fleets, including destroyers, frigates and different types of aircraft that will end their operational life over the next 20 years.

It is important no doubt to come up with a plan to replace aging aircraft and ships and will re-build the Forces.

I doubt the costs quoted though. $30 billion sounds like a program for the new destroyers alone.

Edited May 12, 2008 by jdobbin

[bush_cheney2004]

Good for PM Harper...may the thinking behind Iltis "combat jeeps" continue to rest in peace.

[White Doors]

Whoop! Good news! I too think the cost is being underestimated, at least I hope so.

very good news.

Dobbin, I chose to read this topic from you, congrats on the lack of partisanship.

not get your talking points memo yet?

[sharkman]

Whoop! Good news! I too think the cost is being underestimated, at least I hope so.

very good news.

Dobbin, I chose to read this topic from you, congrats on the lack of partisanship.

not get your talking points memo yet?

Patience my friend, give it a few minutes.

[Wilber]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/05/12/canada-first.html

It is important no doubt to come up with a plan to replace aging aircraft and ships and well re-build the Forces.

I doubt the costs quoted though. $30 billion sounds like a program for the new destroyers alone.

Does seem a little light at first glance. Is this 30B in addition to what is already planned? Interesting to see the break down.

[Shakeyhands]

I'm all for upgrading the Armour.

Edited May 13, 2008 by Shakeyhands

[eyeball]

Oh for Christ's sakes...

I doubt the costs quoted though. $30 billion sounds like a program for the new destroyers alone.

No kidding. No doubt this will go over like a lead balloon with most Canadians but that said I bet military stocks just went up a notch.

A couple of hundred million on some really nasty nukes should deter anyone from ever attacking us. MAD works, embrace the horror. No doubt this will go over like a lead balloon too.

[sharkman]

Oh for Christ's sakes...

No kidding. No doubt this will go over like a lead balloon with most Canadians but that said I bet military stocks just went up a notch.

A couple of hundred million on some really nasty nukes should deter anyone from ever attacking us. MAD works, embrace the horror. No doubt this will go over like a lead balloon too.

What's with the knee jerk reaction about nukes?

I don't know too much about you, are you aware of the decade of slashing our military that the Liberal party did in the 90s? Our military had to drive and fly crap (risking their lives to do so) so the Liberals could claim a balanced budget. The Sea Kings should have been burned long ago.

[Melanie_]

I'm all for upgrading the Armour.

By the way... because I haven't bragged here yet. My daughter who is going into her fourth year at RMC was just made the Cadet Wing Senior for next year, for those that don't know, that means she is the highest ranking cadet in the entire school and is responsible for the entire group of cadets, running parade, submission of reports, discipline, progress etc.... I'm mighty proud!

Good for her.... you deserve to be proud of such an accomplishment! Brag all you like!

[Wilber]

I'm all for upgrading the Armour.

By the way... because I haven't bragged here yet. My daughter who is going into her fourth year at RMC was just made the Cadet Wing Senior for next year, for those that don't know, that means she is the highest ranking cadet in the entire school and is responsible for the entire group of cadets, running parade, submission of reports, discipline, progress etc.... I'm mighty proud!

You should be. Congrats.

[jdobbin]

Does seem a little light at first glance. Is this 30B in addition to what is already planned? Interesting to see the break down.

The costs of Australia's four destroyers was estimated to be between $8 and $10 billion for 2013. Their total navy building program is estimated from $11 to $15 billion. The cost projections for those projects has been rising steadily and they have already begun some of that work. It is why I think the destroyer program for Canada could easily start at the $15 to $20 billion mark and rise thereafter.

Add armour and aircraft and it looks like quite a bit more money.

[guyser]

I like this. Our mil. needs more of everything. As for the price, well, every govt downplays that, and it will surely rise, but good for them.

My daughter who is going into her fourth year at RMC was just made the Cadet Wing Senior for next year, for those that don't know, that means she is the highest ranking cadet in the entire school and is responsible for the entire group of cadets, running parade, submission of reports, discipline, progress etc.... I'm mighty proud!

Be proud shakeyhands, be proud. She is deserving of your pride. Please congratulate her for me.

[eyeball]

What's with the knee jerk reaction about nukes?

Nothing knee jerk about it, I've long advocated building a small arsenal of nukes to deter an attack. There is a lot of evidence that MAD actually does work. It has so far, and if it doesn't, $30 Billion won't do a thing to defend you.

are you aware of the decade of slashing our military that the Liberal party did in the 90s?

That seems like a prudent move given that no one was threatening to declare war on us. Speaking of which, why do we suddenly need 100,00 soldiers now?

Our military had to drive and fly crap (risking their lives to do so) so the Liberals could claim a balanced budget. The Sea Kings should have been burned long ago.

The Sea King is good enough for the biggest military spender the planet has ever seen so I'm afraid I don't really know what you're complaining about. So the government did a sloppy job of maintaining its infrastructure, that happens all the time. Perhaps if you'd focused on the ball and made the government accountable for doing a better job our Sea Kings would be deemed as safe as George Bush's.

[M.Dancer]

I doubt the costs quoted though. $30 billion sounds like a program for the new destroyers alone.

30 Billion would buy 25 brand spanking new British type 45 destroyers. I believe we need 4.

[Wild Bill]

Oh for Christ's sakes...

No kidding. No doubt this will go over like a lead balloon with most Canadians but that said I bet military stocks just went up a notch.

A couple of hundred million on some really nasty nukes should deter anyone from ever attacking us. MAD works, embrace the horror. No doubt this will go over like a lead balloon too.

Do you really think that would be useful in this day and age? After all, MAD only works between nations.

Today's threats seem to be coming from guerrilla and non-state sanctioned groups like Hamas and Al-Queda. If such a group flattened the CN Tower who do we nuke?

Woudn't "feet on the ground" be more useful?

[M.Dancer]

Perhaps if you'd focused on the ball and made the government accountable for doing a better job our Sea Kings would be deemed as safe as George Bush's.

Bush's Sea King is about 25 years newer....

[eyeball]

The costs of Australia's four destroyers was estimated to be between $8 and $10 billion for 2013. Their total navy building program is estimated from $11 to $15 billion. The cost projections for those projects has been rising steadily and they have already begun some of that work. It is why I think the destroyer program for Canada could easily start at the $15 to $20 billion mark and rise thereafter.

Add armour and aircraft and it looks like quite a bit more money.

A handful of nukes looks better all the time. I recall reading that the average cost of a nuke is about $30 million, say we spend a $1 billion to develop the capacity and another billion on making 30 or so bombs...

There's never a fiscal conservative around when you really need one. Anyone else ever notice that?

[eyeball]

Do you really think that would be useful in this day and age? After all, MAD only works between nations.

Today's threats seem to be coming from guerrilla and non-state sanctioned groups like Hamas and Al-Queda. If such a group flattened the CN Tower who do we nuke?

Woudn't "feet on the ground" be more useful?

You're going to surround the CN Tower with 100,00 soldiers or use them to clean up the mess if it falls over? Are you suggesting these will be used to retaliate against a non-state? How does that work?

[August1991]

From the CBC link above:

"If a country wants to be taken seriously in the world, it must have the capacity to act. It's that simple," Harper said Monday at the Halifax Armoury, joined by Defence Minister Peter MacKay. "Otherwise, you forfeit your right to be a player. You're the one chattering on the sideline that everyone smiles at, but no one listens to."

I realize that this is the CBC and all and we don't have the context of Harper's statement but is being a "player" what this is all about? Do I care whether the PM is taken seriously at the table or not? (It obviously matters to Harper but then he's the one with the big ego inflated with my money.)

----

I hope someone is doing some serious risk assessment. This is a whack of cash to buy some big toys.

Our soldiers are being blown up by IEDs. In such a world, do we really need destroyers? But what do I know.

Edited May 12, 2008 by August1991

[jdobbin]

I like this. Our mil. needs more of everything. As for the price, well, every govt downplays that, and it will surely rise, but good for them.

You've got that right. One of the criticisms of the British destroyer program is that it has taken many years to put into place and has risen above the costs that were quoted in the beginning. After dropping out of a European program in the 1990s, the British commissioned there own ships. They originally ordered 12 in 1999 but the costs rose exponentially as did the delivery times. The first of those ships is just undergoing sea trials and will likely be in service in 2009. They have cut back the order to 8 and the costs are now $12 billion Canadian.

If we buy their ships maybe we can expect the first ship after 2012 but we might have to get in line behind the Saudis and others. The costs might be managed at $4 to 6 billion as that is what the Saudis are looking for at 2 to 3. However, is a Canadian government going to buy destroyers from the U.K.? My guess is that it might be politically improbable.

If we develop our own destroyers and have the same lead time that the Brits or Australians did, we are looking at starting at the $12 to $15 billion mark probably from the onset and a delivery time of maybe 2016 if we start now. Given what we know about rising costs from our frigate program, $20 billion + is not out of the question for four destroyers.

I think we need new destroyers just based on our patrol needs in Canada but a little realism on how much it will cost and how long it will take is needed. It will be at least 8 or 9 years if the work starts now.

Edited May 12, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

A handful of nukes looks better all the time. I recall reading that the average cost of a nuke is about $30 million, say we spend a $1 billion to develop the capacity and another billion on making 30 or so bombs...

There's never a fiscal conservative around when you really need one. Anyone else ever notice that?

Well, the Tories are trying for an exemption to enrich uranium. I never thought that would happen. If more and more nations have nuclear weapons, it isn't beyond the realm that Canada might one day have them as well.

Still, I do think we are in need of ships if not for the fact that our own coasts need patrols for security and sovereignty. I just wish the costs were not alway lowballed.

[jdobbin]

By the way... because I haven't bragged here yet. My daughter who is going into her fourth year at RMC was just made the Cadet Wing Senior for next year, for those that don't know, that means she is the highest ranking cadet in the entire school and is responsible for the entire group of cadets, running parade, submission of reports, discipline, progress etc.... I'm mighty proud!

It is quite the achievement. This is her last year at RMC?

[jdobbin]

I realize that this is the CBC and all and we don't have the context of Harper's statement but is being a "player" what this is all about? Do I care whether the PM is taken seriously at the table or not? (It obviously matters to Harper but then he's the one with the big ego inflated with my money.)

It isn't the first time he or the party has used the word "player" in context to the military.

It is a substantial build up and it is built on quite a lot of money already being spent by Martin and then Harper early in his term.

I have no doubt that the program will be given approval in Parliament. I worry about the costs though as we rarely see military spending come in on budget or on time. And given a more precarious financial cushion, I don't know that anyone wants this to be a big drain on government finances.

[eyeball]

QUOTE(eyeball @ May 12 2008, 02:22 PM)

Perhaps if you'd focused on the ball and made the government accountable for doing a better job our Sea Kings would be deemed as safe as George Bush's.

Bush's Sea King is about 25 years newer....

Okay, so ours came into service around 1963 and assuming Bush's was built 25 years later... that places responsibility for maintaining or upgrading ours to the same standard on Brian Mulroney. Not that I give a rats ass about the Liberal's, but I was responding to Sharkman's transparent attempt to cast the Conservatives as being more responsible than the Liberals when it comes to military spending Canada. Hogwash.

I'm all for building a better capacity to respond to natural disaters but you don't need weapon systems to accomplish this. Venues like the Olympics require security guards...mall cops in other words, not soldiers. As for Al-Queda and Hamas...we should be using our still formidable power of moral suasion to pressure the super-powers and other likeminded wannabes to stop interfering in the affairs of other countries and inspiring the development of groups like Al-Queda and Hamas. In the meantime, good old fashioned police-work is the only defense you'll ever have against a terrorist attack against Canada. All the military will ever be able to do is react to an attack after the fact..

[M.Dancer]

Okay, so ours came into service around 1963 and assuming Bush's was built 25 years later... that places responsibility for maintaining or upgrading ours to the same standard on Brian Mulroney.

The Mulroney Gov't ordered new helicopters, the liberals killed the deal.