Harper announces 20-year

[Shakeyhands]

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

I'm all for upgrading the Armour.

Edited May 13, 2008 by Shakeyhands

[Sean Hayward]

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

That's true. And Canada had to pay a $500 million cancellation fee. Is that money well spent? This type of 'Canada First Defence Strategy' is something that is well overdue, and I applaud Harper for introducing it. Some people who usually encourage tax-and-spend government programs, for things like welfare, suddenly turn into fiscal conservatives when the discussion is on military spending.

[eyeball]

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.

I've been safely driving up and down the Pacific coast for nearly 30 years now, aside from the odd snakehead or boatload of pot I haven't seen a single threatening thing beyond the usual marine hazards.

The most threatening thing I've ever seen was a US Coast Guard boat bearing down on me with a big bone in its teeth - when I was fishing a mile above OUR border. I did what any proud Canadian would have done, I defended my country. I hoisted our flag a little higher up the mast, changed course and tacked south.

[eyeball]

(M.Dancer @ May 12 2008, 03:10 PM)

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

That's true. And Canada had to pay a $500 million cancellation fee. Is that money well spent? This type of 'Canada First Defence Strategy' is something that is well overdue, and I applaud Harper for introducing it. Some people who usually encourage tax-and-spend government programs, for things like welfare, suddenly turn into fiscal conservatives when the discussion is on military spending.

Nothing convinces me of the folly of committing to military spending or policies than the bickering of politicians in Ottawa. I wouldn't trust the Liberals with a $30 billion military budget anymore than I would the Conservatives. Both have proven to be equally capable of cocking things up when it comes to spending the public's money.

Edited May 12, 2008 by eyeball

[scribblet]

Sounds like a plan to me, not just for defense purposes either. Considering the amount of disasters world wide lately who knows what's in store for Canada, we may need a better military to help out the civilian population.

[M.Dancer]

I've been safely driving up and down the Pacific coast for nearly 30 years now, aside from the odd snakehead or boatload of pot I haven't seen a single threatening thing beyond the usual marine hazards.

NIMBY

[sharkman]

I've been safely driving up and down the Pacific coast for nearly 30 years now, aside from the odd snakehead or boatload of pot I haven't seen a single threatening thing beyond the usual marine hazards.

The most threatening thing I've ever seen was a US Coast Guard boat bearing down on me with a big bone in its teeth - when I was fishing a mile above OUR border. I did what any proud Canadian would have done, I defended my country. I hoisted our flag a little higher up the mast, changed course and tacked south.

Oh, so the nation of Canada should base it's defense policy on one citizen's experience. Good luck with that.

[eyeball]

NIMBY

I wish. I can already hear the howling over where and when and how much each province's share of this $30 billion spending spree should be. No doubt the West will want in...

[eyeball]

Oh, so the nation of Canada should base it's defense policy on one citizen's experience. Good luck with that.

No I'm just basing the level of threat I feel on my experience. I provided the basis for our defence policy (neutrality) several posts before that.

Edited May 12, 2008 by eyeball

[sharkman]

No I'm just basing the level of threat I feel on my experience. I provided the basis for our defence policy several posts before that.

I say again, that is no basis on which a national government should make its decisions on. I saw your nuke first defense policy several posts ago, and nuclear weapons can not patrol the coast line of a nation, and provide rescues and deterents against Spanish fishing boats off our Atlantic coast.

[M.Dancer]

I say again, that is no basis on which a national government should make its decisions on. I saw your nuke first defense policy several posts ago, and nuclear weapons can not patrol the coast line of a nation, and provide rescues and deterents against Spanish fishing boats off our Atlantic coast.

Thay can't perform UN mandated sea patrols, enforce UN embargoes, rescue fisherman, rescue refugees, fight off pirates.....

[Argus]

I too think this is a lowball figure. Especially taking into consideration our horrifically bad military purchase and acquisition systems which ensure everything takes ten times longer than it ought to and costs double the going price.

Re destroyers. How exactly is a destroyer better than a frigate in this day and age? Couldn't we simply build more of the frigates, perhaps with some upgraded systems? I'm sure that would save a whack of cash. I would rather buy another half dozen frigates and perhaps a couple of dozen fast light coastal patrol craft than sink $15b into a long, expensive project to design and build our own destroyers.

The army needs a lot more stuff, though, and comparatively (compared to the navy and air force) it's dirt cheap. They primarily need more trucks, armored cars and armored personnel carriers. We also need transport helicopters and armed helicopters to support them. The Australians have armed helicopters. Why don't we?

And talking about big ticket items, those "new" F-18s it took the armed forces forever to buy are now between 20 and 26 years old and are nearing the end of their usefulness. Given it took a decade between when the government started the project and when the last of them was delivered we need to start the process moving now. The modernization program costs to make them last another ten years are over $2b, so you can imagine what buying new ones will cost.

[M.Dancer]

Re destroyers. How exactly is a destroyer better than a frigate in this day and age?

Real Estate.

Simply put, being larger means they can handle more systems. The frigates are bascially an anti sub platform with a limited AA and anti surface capability. A destroyer can be dedicated AA, or dedicated anti sub...and still have ample room to be a command and control flag ship with robust radar etc etc...

Destroyers have enough real estate they can be very effective anti surface platforms and still have enough room for 2 helicopters and a modest AA suite.

[M.Dancer]

I would rather buy another half dozen frigates and perhaps a couple of dozen fast light coastal patrol craft than sink $15b into a long, expensive project to design and build our own destroyers.

You are corrct. We can buy them cheaper from the US or Brits....well...probably not the Brits unless they want a trade in for the subs....

[eyeball]

Thay can't perform UN mandated sea patrols, enforce UN embargoes, rescue fisherman, rescue refugees, fight off pirates.....

For sea patrols and rescuing fishermen and refugee's that wash ashore we have the Coast Guard and the RCMP have boats on the coast as well. What pirates are you talking about?

[eyeball]

Simply put, being larger means they can handle more systems. The frigates are bascially an anti sub platform with a limited AA and anti surface capability. A destroyer can be dedicated AA, or dedicated anti sub...and still have ample room to be a command and control flag ship with robust radar etc etc...

Destroyers have enough real estate they can be very effective anti surface platforms and still have enough room for 2 helicopters and a modest AA suite.

All this to rescue a few fishermen? Why, never mind how?

[eyeball]

You are corrct. We can buy them cheaper from the US or Brits....well...probably not the Brits unless they want a trade in for the subs....

Ahem...we have a shipbuilding industry out here in BC and I'm sure there's an industry on the East coast that could benefit from constructing these ships. Aside from the possible economic spin-offs of building these ships at home, what if the US and Britain are destroyed by an enemy attack? We need the capability to build and repair our own military ourselves. You would rather we depend on other countries to provide for our defence?

[Argus]

You are corrct. We can buy them cheaper from the US or Brits....well...probably not the Brits unless they want a trade in for the subs....

If we have to have destroyers I would rather buy them from someone else. We'd save billions. I don't see us buying them off the brits after that sub debacle, and buying them off the Americans would probably be politically explosive. I wonder if we could get the Aussies to sell us the plans to theirs.

[Argus]

Ahem...we have a shipbuilding industry out here in BC and I'm sure there's an industry on the East coast that could benefit from constructing these ships. Aside from the possible economic spin-offs of building these ships at home, what if the US and Britain are destroyed by an enemy attack? We need the capability to build and repair our own military ourselves. You would rather we depend on other countries to provide for our defence?

Just because you build a freighter doesn't mean you can handle the job of constructing a destroyer. They're quite a bit more complicated. And as we have no plans and no team, so far as I know, capable of designing plans, perhaps we can get the plans off the Aussies and have someone else build them.

[sharkman]

If we have to have destroyers I would rather buy them from someone else. We'd save billions. I don't see us buying them off the brits after that sub debacle, and buying them off the Americans would probably be politically explosive. I wonder if we could get the Aussies to sell us the plans to theirs.

I agree, building them ourselves when we have little experience is a sure way to up the cost. In BC, the worst premier we ever had decided to start up a fast ferry building program, with no experience. These ferries, aside from being disasters that couldn't go at proper speed in the waters they were designed to serve in, cost many times their original projections. When a civil servant tried to warn of this overrun, his reports were deep sixed, then he was fired. The ferries were discarded within a couple of years.

Buying from elsewhere is much less risky, what's wrong with the US?

[Argus]

I agree, building them ourselves when we have little experience is a sure way to up the cost. In BC, the worst premier we ever had decided to start up a fast ferry building program, with no experience. These ferries, aside from being disasters that couldn't go at proper speed in the waters they were designed to serve in, cost many times their original projections. When a civil servant tried to warn of this overrun, his reports were deep sixed, then he was fired. The ferries were discarded within a couple of years.

Buying from elsewhere is much less risky, what's wrong with the US?

I have nothing against buying from the Americans, but given the constant harping on Harper being a Bush clone, and sucking up to the Americans, and following into line with US foreign policy, etc. etc. it would be quite difficult for him to buy from them. Buying abroad in the first place would be hard enough, given the uproar that would bring from our own ship building industry (such as it is) but doing it from the Americans would be a double whammy of bad publicity. If Harper had a firm majority he might risk it but I don't think he will given the current circumstances.

The coast guard is in pretty desperate shape too. They're supposed to get some new large ships, but God knows when. We can build those at home, at least.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Aside from the possible economic spin-offs of building these ships at home, what if the US and Britain are destroyed by an enemy attack? We need the capability to build and repair our own military ourselves. You would rather we depend on other countries to provide for our defence?

If the US and Britain are destroyed by an enemy attack, you will have much bigger issues to worry about.

[Michael Bluth]

If the US and Britain are destroyed by an enemy attack, you will have much bigger issues to worry about.

If the US is destroyed by an enemy attack we are screwed. What would/could the UK do for us in such a scenario?

[punked]

"After two years of planning a new future for the Canadian forces, the Conservative government today announced what it called the Canada First Defence Strategy.

The strategy is essentially the plan to replace six old and, in some cases, rusting pieces of equipment with new ones, which is what the Conservatives promised to do in the last election campaign, two and a half years ago.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is promising to spend as much as $30 billion over 20 years to replace ships, vehicles, rescue and surveillance planes, and fighter aircraft. But not all of this is new.

In fact, planning for all of those projects has been under way for some time. In some cases, plans to purchase the equipment had been announced but then cancelled and then, in at least one case, reannounced when the Conservatives took office.

The prime minister said the Canadian Forces would be expanded to 100,000 soldiers, sailors and air crew, which is also a number already promised.

He also said the defence budget would be doubled in 20 years, which may happen. But defence spending, of course, is notoriously at the whim of whoever is in office."

-CBC

So they are basically giving us what he promised cancelled and now promised again. Thanks for that 3 years and wasted money later.

Edited May 13, 2008 by punked

[jdobbin]

I don't find this comforting.

None of today's announcement will be committed to paper.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...6d-31333cbbb57f

Canada's defence strategy for the next 20 years will be based on speeches by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Defence Minister Peter MacKay given Monday in Halifax.

In a highly unusual move, the Conservative government will base its entire future rebuilding of the Canadian military on Mr. Harper's 10-minute speech and Mr. MacKay's 700-word address.

No actual strategy document has been produced, nor will be produced, according to government and defence officials. Neither speech went into any specific details about equipment purchases, costs or timelines or how the future strategy will unfold. Both speeches presented more broad-brush approaches to defence.