M.Dancer Posted May 15, 2008 Report Share Posted May 15, 2008 (edited) The Arrow (or a derivative thereof) could have been many things, but Canada gave up on the vision when reality reared its ugly head. The Arrow was an engineering success, but also a political failure that signaled Canada's identity as a lesser god. I would never argue that the Arrow couldn't have been re-engineered into another warplane. The US bomber, the F-111 was originally conceived as a fighter.....what made it an eventual siccess as a deep penetration bomber was the wealth of the manufactuerer and the US military. Neither Canada nor Avro had these resources, they both bit off more than they could chew by designing a place which would be reason of it's mission have very few buyers. Had they been more modest in their ambitions and designed a ground support bomber or a tactical fighter, perhaps the programme might have come to fruition. Edited May 15, 2008 by M.Dancer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 It looks like the true costs of the Tory plan are revealing themselves. The $30 billion program sounded far too low. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/20/military-plan.html The Conservative government has quietly released the details of its extensive plan to beef up the military, including spending $490 billion over the next 20 years to ensure Canadian soldiers are well-equipped, well-trained and highly active.Details of the plan, known as Canada's First Defence Strategy, were posted Thursday night without fanfare on the Department of National Defence's website. Experts are wondering why the Tories release these thing late in the day without comment. Perhaps internal polling shows it plays negatively for Tories. Who knows. It isn't very transparent and people have to wonder why they made a $30 billion announcement in the first place if the figure was actually $490 billion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 It looks like the true costs of the Tory plan are revealing themselves. The $30 billion program sounded far too low.http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/20/military-plan.html Experts are wondering why the Tories release these thing late in the day without comment. Perhaps internal polling shows it plays negatively for Tories. Who knows. It isn't very transparent and people have to wonder why they made a $30 billion announcement in the first place if the figure was actually $490 billion. Maybe because he wasn't including the salaries of all military and defense staff for the next twenty years in his budget? The above figure includes the entire budget for DND, including salaries, upkeep on bases, fuel for warships, etc. for the next twenty years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 If you think it is a lot now, can you imagine the cost under Dion...why, the carbon tax alone on a 105mm shell will be enough to fill up 4 Hummers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 (edited) Maybe because he wasn't including the salaries of all military and defense staff for the next twenty years in his budget? The above figure includes the entire budget for DND, including salaries, upkeep on bases, fuel for warships, etc. for the next twenty years. I'm still wondering why they announced $30 billion when it was clear a few days later that even on capital spending that it was going to be $45 to $50 billion. I'd also like to see the estimates on the increase over and above what the military was expected to get. I support the move to re-equip the military but I think it is important to put it on paper which the government was loath to do at first. I'd like to see better cost oversight on military purchases as well since they are notorious for going over budget. Edited June 20, 2008 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 I'd like to put somethings into context, First off lets talk about our military and it's size just for a second. The entire military size is approx 55,000 Regular force members, of this the Navy 11,000, the Airforce Approx 16,000, the Army has 28,000 soldiers. Now while 55,000 sounds like alot, it could not fill a NHL hockey staduim think about that next time your at a big game....this is the number to protect the second largest continent.... And while the Army has close to 28,000 members, more than half of those numbers are made up of support trades, cooks, supply, clerks etc, those numbers of actual combat troops , Inf, Arm, Art, Combat engs, is approx only 10,000, but wait it gets better, out of that 10,000 troops more than 2500 to 3000 are listed as non, deployable, IE waiting to get out, medical reasons, adminstrative reasons the list goes on, now you have to subtract those that are involved in training or HQ postions subtract another 2000 to 2500 members, IE indiv training , recruit training , trades training etc.... So really what we have left is 4500 to 5500 combat arms soldiers, off which a third are one tour now, another 1/3 are training for a tour and the remaining 1/3 are resting from tour....And the Army is one of the better equiped and manned elements....does that raise any alarm bells....the city of toronto has more police officers to protect one little city.... Now there will be some that say "thats your job butter cup", don't like it find another....well many are, and along with them goes the experiance that we need to train the new recruits. Most love serving thier country, but seeing your family and kids 6 to 8 months out of every 2 years does not make for a happy family life... So by boosting our troop strenth to 100,000 , we are hoping that the time between tours will be lengthened...to the piont that the soldiers don't have to sacrafice thier families in order to serve our country. To futher put that into context, and what that means to the average Canadian, The ICE storm that happened in Ont, Que, and NB, took 3/4 of the army to respond , along with the thousands of volunteers that pitched in, the Winnipeg floods took the entire army minus those deployed, plus alot of the airforce and navy..... Now while these were disasters , they where small in comparison to Katrina, or say a major earth quake in BC.... Hans Island, after Eurpean special forces planted thier nations flag on the island, DND decided it would attempt to flex it's muscles , this turned into a cluster f****, as the intense fog, made flying extremily haz, and the navy could not operate in the ice conditions, and well the army could have walked, it decided not to when an airforce guy got lost in the fog on the airfield not more than 500 meters from his quaters for 36 hours that "would'nt be a great idea".... so when it comes to projecting power in the defense of this nation we had proved it could not be done, at that time atleast up that far up north.....But denmark could.... But then there is always the "who's going to attack us anyways", crowd, or high intense combat is a thing of the past, is'nt that what they said before Gulf war I and II, every conflict we get involved in is the flavour of the day, and great land battles become a thing of the past, but nations still spend trillions of dollars equipping thier militarys for just an event....good thing we never voted that in on the last town meeting..... Which brings us to these questions.....why does russia fly it's bomber into out airspace, why do other foreign navies test our capabilities both submedged and on the surface, and why does foreign ground forces land troops in our north....do you think there intentions are friendly, or they just want to see what all the fuss is about in Canada, land of the beaver and polar bears....... And thats just manpower, equipment we are using to do this job is getting old, or we don't have enough of it... most of our combat power is in Afgan, or attached to NATO, or has yet to be delivered.....the 30 billion dollars our government is talking about is peanuts, Gen hillier has already given a figure of over 100 bil just to bring what we have now, which is not alot up to modern day standards.... alot of that equipment has already been talked about, but in the army, which is considered the rich element, does not have the equipment to equip all our units, most units are below established manning levels and well below equipment levels...., what equipment we do have is being used up way to fast in AFgan, lack of spare parts is a major problem, lack of everything is a major problem... The military has been warning of this for along time it has also warned of the price, so getting sticker shock at 30 bil really is your own fault.....wait for the final bill... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fortunata Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 We do need to beef up the military. But what this government should have done is be honest with the people to start with on how much it would cost. This reminds me of the gun registry - give one figure people can swallow then spend many times that amount and hope no one will notice. So much for our "new" government doing things differently - you know, open, transparent, accountable. All those things people voted for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 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! Congrats, I'd say you have alot to be proud off, that is some accomplishment. Bravo zulu to you and your daughter. She'll be a welcomed addition to the officer corp for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 $490 Billion? In your dreams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 I saw the small announcement on www.thestar.com 250 BILLION to grow Canadian Forces to 70,000 and 30,000 reservists and to keep it these levels. 140 million yrly for maintenance, spare parts and training. This after the 30 Bil that went to 45-50 Bil for planes, helicopters, Arctic icebreakers, search and rescue crafts, ships and tanks. The article asked why all this buying.....it said about global security, new nuclear weapons and the Islamic militants and the building up of militants in the Asia Pacific region. Here in Canada we need them for drug smugglers, infections diseases and to keep foreign encroachments on Canada`s natural resources. I think because Harper has started to blend our military with the US, that we will see more Canadian Forces on the battlefield along side with the US military. I could be wrong, but I don`t think the DND will get its personnel to fill the void and therefore, I would put it pass Harper to make it mandatory, to do time in the forces, if he gets a majority government. WHY SPEND ALL THIS MONEY IF YOU DON`T HAVE THE MANPOWER?????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted June 21, 2008 Report Share Posted June 21, 2008 WHY SPEND ALL THIS MONEY IF YOU DON`T HAVE THE MANPOWER?????? At the rate we're losing decent paying jobs here in Ontario I would think that we will have no shortage of volunteers among our youth. Not everyone wants to move to the oil patch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted June 21, 2008 Report Share Posted June 21, 2008 At the rate we're losing decent paying jobs here in Ontario I would think that we will have no shortage of volunteers among our youth.Not everyone wants to move to the oil patch. That's true, but does the youth of todays war want to come back with body parts missing or in a body bag? Sure that's all part of war but the tech. of war today is alot different than WW2 and % of coming home alive is alot lower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 Speaking of decent paying jobs...who's the government going to tax, the rich? $490 billion... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 That's true, but does the youth of todays war want to come back with body parts missing or in a body bag? Sure that's all part of war but the tech. of war today is alot different than WW2 and % of coming home alive is alot lower. What the hell are you talking about? Do you even have a clue what you're saying when you spout this nonsense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 What the hell are you talking about? Do you even have a clue what you're saying when you spout this nonsense? I'm just telling you what I've heard from other young people say about NOT joining the military. They know friends that joined and were able to get out and they don't want any part of it. Todays youth knows more about whats going on in TODAYS wars than their grfathers did . Why do you think recruitment is down in Canada and the US? NATO wants another 6000 troops, does Canada have them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 ...Why do you think recruitment is down in Canada and the US? NATO wants another 6000 troops, does Canada have them? Somewhere in their 20-year plan, the Tories must have included cuts to daycare, education, EI payments, and transfer payments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 I'm just telling you what I've heard from other young people say about NOT joining the military. They know friends that joined and were able to get out and they don't want any part of it. Todays youth knows more about whats going on in TODAYS wars than their grfathers did Today's youth are almost entirely ignorant of almost everything in the planet, including history, science and geography, and can, in many cases, barely write well enough to sign their names. Most of them haven't even read a newspaper in their lives, except for those gifted few who read the comics. Books frighten them, and they're too lazy to vote. Now you're trying to tell us they're smarter than their far better educated and knowledgeable grandparents? Phhhhtt! [Why do you think recruitment is down in Canada and the US? NATO wants another 6000 troops, does Canada have them? Recruitment is not down. The problem is the military does a piss poor job of training. Many who join the military are forced to wait many, many months to get their training, and drift away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 Why do you think recruitment is down in Canada and the US? Can your toaster supply a citation for this factoid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 (edited) Many who join the military are forced to wait many, many months to get their training, and drift away. What do they do while they're waiting? Edited June 23, 2008 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 24, 2008 Report Share Posted June 24, 2008 A few have asked why we need a navy and big ships perhaps the link below will answer that question. national post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 24, 2008 Report Share Posted June 24, 2008 A few have asked why we need a navy and big ships perhaps the link below will answer that question.national post The linky no worky for me.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 Sorry try this one. national post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 But Canada needs a navy, a quietly professional service that projects power abroad... Before spending a single dime, I'd like a full public inquiry/commission/constitutional debate/referendum into precisely why we need to project our power abroad. A far far more effective defence policy would be to just stay at home, keep our own noses clean and to mind our own business. Canada should keep its head down and let the rogues shoot it out amongst themselves. The evidence is overwhelming that every country that's tried to project its power abroad has resulted in their biting off more than they can chew. All we need is a few really nasty nukes to deter anyone from taking a bite out of us. There is only one country that could ever conceivably invade us in any conventional sense and the last time they tried it they got their asses handed back to them. MAD works for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 Before spending a single dime, I'd like a full public inquiry/commission/constitutional debate/referendum into precisely why we need to project our power abroad. A far far more effective defence policy would be to just stay at home, keep our own noses clean and to mind our own business. Has that ever worked in the past that you should claim it is effective? No, not in the past and not now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 I think the claim can be based on the proven ineffectiveness of projecting power abroad. The projection of violence only begets more of the same. Can you show me any country that was invaded for minding its own business? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.