Canada's flawed military policies

[jdobbin]

Ah yes, a report by people who have made their disdain for the military clear for decades, whose fondest hopes are that we spend not one cent on the mlitary, who believe every dollar given to the military is a dollar wasted.

Think that is a bogus argument and you know it.

And being who they are, the report is utter trash, of course as J.L. Granatstein makes clear

Yes, I know that Granatstein wants spending tied to GDP. The reason it isn't is because such spending is uncontrolled which is what some in security want. No limits.

Rather than dollar amounts for specific goals, they want such money guaranteed and spent simply because it is there. I would disagree with that for any government department.

It's also impossible to equate, dollar for dollar, the cost of high tech equipment today, or the costs of maintenance of high tech equipment.

Which is why security experts want budgets tied to GDP. It is noted that some on the right don't want budgets for things like health tied to GDP.

Thanks for confirming what John McCallum let out accidentally, that the Liberals think too much money is going to the military and they'll use any kind of decietful statistical games to justify cutting back. But then, a party which has Denis Coderre as its defence critic doesn't exactly need to take out advertising to show how little importance they put in the military.

Thanks for confirming that some on the right want to cut other areas of the budget to fund defence to 4% or more of GDP.

Edited May 6, 2009 by jdobbin

[Army Guy]

I consider MacKenzie to be a Conservative. His criticisms often reflect partisan jabs at the Liberals.

Hillier has also made jabs at the liberals, as do most military members, regardless of who they vote for....just so i'm clear does your party chose reflect if your a Yaho or not....does it make your professional opinion any less "say" professional or legitimate....

Hillier on the other hand has been saying that Canada has been pulling its weight. You'll have to show me where he has not said that. I have seen quotes from 2005 saying as much and that was with the Liberals as government.

No he has been saying we have been punching above our weight in alot of areas.....Those areas are more due to the professionalism of our soldiers than it does our governmental role. For example NORAD, which equally protects both the US and Canada...most of the bill is payed out by the US government....most of the equipment used is American....and we as Canadians are OK with this...However NORAD is a large driving factor for our military defence policies, our military spending, and it also reflects our foreign policies....

Same with Can be said with NATO....currently we are involved in Afghan, and our Navy has some ship postions in the north atlantic....is this what you call pulling our wieght....when compared to other NATO partners....

I'd settle for not gaming the specs to favour only one supplier. The military has been ensuring that there is only one possible supplier by asking for specs specific to one supplier. Subsequently, we are held hostage when these suppliers ask for more time or more money. I wish I could say this is an unusual occurrence but cost overruns are so endemic that it strains budgets no matter how big they are.

Alot of things drive a military purchase, we as a military must remain inter operable with our prime defence partner, the US, our capability must work with thiers, plus they must be similar with eurpean NATO partners...that is a big driving piont, next is we don't have a big track record for making huge military purchases, and what we do buy we normally keep well after it's useful life is gone...this practice is why we don't have a large defence industry here in Canada, it is also more expensive to run older equipment which sucks when you have so much of it...

Quality of product is another big piont, lots of garbage out there, and i know it is a mout piont but lifes depend on this equipment....most of the time the cheapest bidder gets the contract, something to remember that maybe one day your kids may be using it....

The military does alot of research on it's equipment purchases, it tests equipment from around the globe....and it is not allowed to asked for a specific make and model....but like other professionals they have preferences...so specs are written the weay they are....

After all the people that are doing the purchases are not Military but civilians, and they pick the equipment by the specs we provide, and they pick more than one example....

Politics play a huge role in equipment purchases, once again lifes take a second seat to money, jobs created, and votes....one day we'll all see just how stupid our system is and change it....i mean do we send our wifes down to buy our power tools, or does your wife send you down to pick out her next china set.......why is that....and do we buy the cheapest one available, or do we buy because it creats jobs or gets you votes...

It was the Navy that advocated hard for the purchase. I don't know that you can lay this one off on the government overriding military advice. The military requested the subs, said they needed the subs and said the deal to get the subs was a steal.

Although the Upholders are newer than the 40-year-old Oberon-class boats that our sailors used to operate, the British subs had never been on the navy's wish list as a replacement.

sub

When these were purchased it was lean times for the military, and i know the purchase baffeled alot of us ...as the military had already published it's wish list for that year and years to come and subs were not on it...

There are others the famous LSVW, made by western Star in BC....Italian design this veh you could not find a worse veh in the world to buy....they had to take this veh to the desert in the states so it could pass it's final tests....but it created jobs...to bad those boys in BC could not of picked a better truck to build....they where crap, still are crap....only now there are rusting crap...

I do blame it on changing tactics. Equipment has been purchased when needed for the mission. There were many in the military who thought tanks would be a poor choice for Afghanistan. That thinking changed as IEDs became ever more powerful.

We could argue the piont until one us turns blue....the piont is we where sent to Afghan with light equipment, for many reasons....because we where leaving Bosina and thats what was available, to costly to send in the heavy stuff, but like so many things we where short on we had adopted....and it was not until soldiers started to die that the G wagons where purchased, only a maginal better opition....and when the the member of parlimant was killed, the G wagons where declared non operational for afghan....every politician in the book has been there and when asked the soldier told them we need better equipment....but it was not until each piece had claimed x amount of lifes that it was replaced....

atleast that is how it looks on my side of the fence....

Yes, I know that Granatstein wants spending tied to GDP. The reason it isn't is because such spending is uncontrolled which is what some in security want. No limits.

It makes since in lean times the first place they vist is the military, so when the GDP is down then military spending goes down, when it's up spending is up....

[Smallc]

Built in 1972, upgraded 91,92,94

Yes, and they are planned to be replaced in 2017. The US has decommissioned some Ticonderoga Class as well, yet others till sail....

Commisioned in 69 and 70, No date set for completion

Ottawa citizen quoted the person in charge of the navy as saying that they would know what they were going to do by summer.

Once again a design has not even been chosen,

We aren't supposed to have a design yet as the design phase was started in 2007 and set to last until the middle of this year.

we purchased 4 of which 3 are still in EDWP(extended docking work period) so we've manged to make one work but it has alot of restrictions,

Never should have bought them.

To move mass amounts of troops and equipment, currently DND rents on to ferry in new Armoured vehs into Afghan and dead ones out....lets not forget the last time we rented a RORO ship it was hijacked and need a NAVY landing party to back our vehs...

Maybe we need it, but we seem to get by without. If the JSS project goes ahead as planned, it will act in this capacity. If it doesn't, then we'll just have to keep renting.

Yes we are but i think that had alot to do with not being able to fire smart wpns, being able to talk with other NATO aircraft, and that most of the other systems where to out of date....one of the very reasons we don't have fighter aircraft in Afghan, and in 2020 they will be even that much futher behind....but hey the airfoce guys could use flash lights and morse code to talk ....

They are not due for replacement yet and it would be a waste of money to replace things before needed. A great deal of work was done and you can read about it on Wikipedia. It's cited and everything.

We have 2 CC150 that are still being converted to refuelers, and 2 C-130 kits for 80 aircraft

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/news...114&id=6727

We have the capability. For 48 jets in operational squadrons, it's probably enough.

We have x 2 arcturus in service now designed and built for artic surv, they will be retired soon....the conversions you talk about are happening to the remained of the fleet and involved talking out the ASW sensors, kind of defeats the purpose does it not of having a maritime patrol ves.....but hey it will have a ground surv sys which the RCMP love because it catches drug boats and bad guys....sorry it does not catch subs....

According to the government, the upgrades are being done to the radar, the structure, the computers, and other systems. Yes, we will be left with a smaller fleet, but it hoped that we can find a UAV fleet that will be suitable to augment them in the not to many year range and it is planned for them to be replaced by the P8 in 11 years.

Yes we did for Afghan use only, DND is still looking for a whiole seris of UAVs A high alt long range version for artic surv....a UAV similar to the preditor a or b, for Afghan to patrol the roads etc etc ....

So doesn't the fact that DND is looking say that they are doing something about it? These things don't just appear out of thin air.

Yes we did....lets also keep in mind that all those soldiers that recieve an escort back into Canada, where in a LAV veh at the time, odd's are if the soldier did not survive nor did the veh.....

That's right, and something will need to be done. That said, new ground equipment is being bought all of the time and the people on the ground seem to have the best available. Like I said, we can't have everything we want all of the time.

Yes we purchase 6 for afghan then just signed a contract for 34 more to outfit the regt in Canada....normally a Regt has between 18 and 24 guns....we have 3 operational Brigade groups....the french Gait gun is no longer allowed to be used, something about barrels cracking when fired...the other 105 mm gun well was made in the 1950's i believe....

So new equipment is being bought....You just don't think it's enough. Oh, and the information available on the web says that there are 12 of the 155mm in inventory and an order for 37 more, but that's only wiki, so it could always be wrong.

I'd love to have a stronger military, but to pretend that we aren't spending much and that we aren't spending more than we have in a very long time is wrong. i dislike that all of the progress is being ignored. Also, it's important to note that other country forces shrunk by a similar amount to ours after the peace dividend. All of them are much smaller than they were in 1985.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Same with Can be said with NATO....currently we are involved in Afghan, and our Navy has some ship postions in the north atlantic....is this what you call pulling our wieght....when compared to other NATO partners....

And we're off of the coast of Somalia....and in Sudan...and in the Congo....and in Darfur....and in the Balkans...etc, etc. Granted, many of those missions are in small numbers...but...we are a 2nd tier NATO defence member. We are the top spending 2nd tier member.

Also, why should a country with 30M people pay the half of the bill that it shares with a country of 300M people?

[Army Guy]

Yes, and they are planned to be replaced in 2017. The US has decommissioned some Ticonderoga Class as well, yet others till sail....

Built before 1972,

They are not due for replacement yet and it would be a waste of money to replace things before needed. A great deal of work was done and you can read about it on Wikipedia. It's cited and everything.

You'll need to talk to the airforce on that, we fly the F-18A model they build a E and F model now....we where forced to upgrade because we where not inter operable with the US , could not carry the same ordance, could not communicate, could not do alot of things...and this will be a problem once again when the US airforce begins mass producing the F-35's... it is time for a replacement, 2017 was picked because that is when we will have the cash for the purchase....

We have the capability. For 48 jets in operational squadrons, it's probably enough.

but we have 80 F-18, and what about the other aircraft that require refueling....then there is things like routine maintance, which can take weeks to perform, other missions or taskings that may come up,

According to the government, the upgrades are being done to the radar, the structure, the computers, and other systems. Yes, we will be left with a smaller fleet, but it hoped that we can find a UAV fleet that will be suitable to augment them in the not to many year range and it is planned for them to be replaced by the P8 in 11 years.

thats alot of what if's the p-8 just made it's first sucessfull refueling last month....do we want to buy todays tech in 11 years time....

So doesn't the fact that DND is looking say that they are doing something about it? These things don't just appear out of thin air.

no we are always looking, things don't start to get done until our government first says it has the money...

So new equipment is being bought....You just don't think it's enough. Oh, and the information available on the web says that there are 12 of the 155mm in inventory and an order for 37 more, but that's only wiki, so it could always be wrong.

those first guns we purchased went to Afghan, since then we have retired the M-109's and the new 105mm gaits, leaving a huge capability gap....for some what 5 years or so...do you think 6 guns was enough....do your think 37 more are enough....i mean they are replacing what so 60 pieces or more....

I'd love to have a stronger military, but to pretend that we aren't spending much and that we aren't spending more than we have in a very long time is wrong. i dislike that all of the progress is being ignored. Also, it's important to note that other country forces shrunk by a similar amount to ours after the peace dividend. All of them are much smaller than they were in 1985.

When you compare it to the total bill that needs to be spent , not to increase our capibilites but to maintain them...then i disagree we are not spending enough....Soldiers are greatful for every piece of equipment we get....It takes a special kind of person to become a soldier in our military, and for the most part we are all very passionate about what we do, and how we do it....we just want the equipment to better serve our nation....that being said i doubt things would change for us and our will to serve if you'd given us a shovel and a pocket knife....

[Wild Bill]

Also, why should a country with 30M people pay the half of the bill that it shares with a country of 300M people?

Smallc, you might want to google up just where Canada stands percentage-wise for its population compared to its other NATO partners before you make such statements. You've just embarrassed yourself.

I'll make it easy for you. Go here:

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32209.pdf

Scroll to the 2nd to last page (page 26) and you'll find a chart showing NATO defense spending as a percentage of GDP. Apparently, there are 19 member countries in NATO with the additions of all those former Eastern European countries. The chart shows Iceland as dead last with 0%. Then comes tiny Luxenbourg.

Then comes Canada as number 17.

No one expects us to pay half but it would be nice if we even covered the tip!

We've been pikers for years, sending our troops out with bows and arrows against the lightning so politicians like Chretien could pose for photo-ops.

We should be ashamed!

[Army Guy]

Also, why should a country with 30M people pay the half of the bill that it shares with a country of 300M people?

Would you believe we only pay just above 11 % of that bill for NORAD, does not sound like we are pulling our wieght here at all.

[Smallc]

Would you believe we only pay just above 11 % of that bill for NORAD, does not sound like we are pulling our wieght here at all.

Yes....it does sound like we're pulling our weight since we have about 11% or the population of NORAD.

[Smallc]

Smallc, you might want to google up just where Canada stands percentage-wise for its population compared to its other NATO partners before you make such statements. You've just embarrassed yourself.

I'll make it easy for you. Go here:

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32209.pdf

Scroll to the 2nd to last page (page 26) and you'll find a chart showing NATO defense spending as a percentage of GDP. Apparently, there are 19 member countries in NATO with the additions of all those former Eastern European countries. The chart shows Iceland as dead last with 0%. Then comes tiny Luxenbourg.

Then comes Canada as number 17.

Of course, you focus on GDP because it proves your point. Unfortunately for your point, Canada is the 6th largest spender in NATO in terms of actual dollars and is close to the middle in per capita spending. We are ahead of the European average on per capita spending also. Just because I don't always take the view of that thinks that everything Canada does sucks and is bad doesn't mean I've embarrassed myself.

[Smallc]

Built before 1972,

And set for replacement in 2017.

You'll need to talk to the airforce on that, we fly the F-18A model they build a E and F model now....we where forced to upgrade because we where not inter operable with the US , could not carry the same ordance, could not communicate, could not do alot of things...and this will be a problem once again when the US airforce begins mass producing the F-35's... it is time for a replacement, 2017 was picked because that is when we will have the cash for the purchase....

I know all of those things. The F 35 won't go into production until 2011. We aren't replacing our fighters until 2017. In the meantime, we're doing a large number of upgrades to weapons, structure, and computers to ensure that the equipment we have is adequate until 2017 - 2020.

but we have 80 F-18, and what about the other aircraft that require refueling....then there is things like routine maintance, which can take weeks to perform, other missions or taskings that may come up,

Yes, all of those things are true, but the reality is that we do have the capability even if it isn't in the numbers that you would like.

thats alot of what if's the p-8 just made it's first sucessfull refueling last month....do we want to buy todays tech in 11 years time....

I should rephrase. The plan right now calls for something like the P8....it may not be the P8. Also, the P8 won't necessarily be outdated in 11 years.

no we are always looking, things don't start to get done until our government first says it has the money...

Like every other government department....in every country. As it should be.

those first guns we purchased went to Afghan, since then we have retired the M-109's and the new 105mm gaits, leaving a huge capability gap....for some what 5 years or so...do you think 6 guns was enough....do your think 37 more are enough....i mean they are replacing what so 60 pieces or more....

I'm not debating that there may not be enough, but I didn't make the decision. Obviously someone in government or the military or both thinks that it's enough.

When you compare it to the total bill that needs to be spent , not to increase our capibilites but to maintain them...then i disagree we are not spending enough....Soldiers are greatful for every piece of equipment we get....It takes a special kind of person to become a soldier in our military, and for the most part we are all very passionate about what we do, and how we do it....we just want the equipment to better serve our nation....that being said i doubt things would change for us and our will to serve if you'd given us a shovel and a pocket knife....

You do an excellent service to this country and I am very grateful for it. People always want better things, I know....I love when Canada has the best. That said, there are always priorities....and unfortunately they can't always (or sometimes ever) be in the order that we want.

[bjre]

Smallc, you might want to google up just where Canada stands percentage-wise for its population compared to its other NATO partners before you make such statements. You've just embarrassed yourself.

I'll make it easy for you. Go here:

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32209.pdf

Scroll to the 2nd to last page (page 26) and you'll find a chart showing NATO defense spending as a percentage of GDP. Apparently, there are 19 member countries in NATO with the additions of all those former Eastern European countries. The chart shows Iceland as dead last with 0%. Then comes tiny Luxenbourg.

Then comes Canada as number 17.

No one expects us to pay half but it would be nice if we even covered the tip!

We've been pikers for years, sending our troops out with bows and arrows against the lightning so politicians like Chretien could pose for photo-ops.

We should be ashamed!

I don't think we should be ashamed because we don't buy some useless things.

It reflects the actual situation of Canada.

Canada's GDP is not ranking much better.

Canada's patent application number is not ranking much better.

Canada was in the 2nd list in the G20 in England.

Canada's position in the Olympic metal list is not ranking much better.

We have too many things need to do that are much important than this.

When lots of people still need EI, why ask people to pay more for unnecessary?

[Smallc]

Canada's GDP is not ranking much better.

It's not? Our per capita GDP in current Canadian dollars is about $48K (slightly down from a few years ago). Our GDP is $1.6T CAD (up from few years ago).

Edited May 6, 2009 by Smallc

[bjre]

It's not?

http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/gd...ity_2008_0.html

1 World $65,820,000,000,000

2 European Union $14,440,000,000,000

3 United States $13,860,000,000,000

4 China $7,043,000,000,000

5 Japan $4,305,000,000,000

6 India $2,965,000,000,000

7 Germany $2,833,000,000,000

8 United Kingdom $2,147,000,000,000

9 Russia $2,076,000,000,000

10 France $2,067,000,000,000

11 Brazil $1,838,000,000,000

12 Italy $1,800,000,000,000

13 Spain $1,362,000,000,000

14 Mexico $1,353,000,000,000

15 Canada $1,274,000,000,000

16 Korea, South $1,206,000,000,000

17 Iran $852,600,000,000

18 Indonesia $845,600,000,000

19 Australia $766,800,000,000

20 Taiwan $690,100,000,000

21 Turkey $667,700,000,000

22 Netherlands $638,900,000,000

23 Poland $624,600,000,000

24 Saudi Arabia $572,200,000,000

25 Argentina $523,700,000,000

26 Thailand $519,900,000,000

27 South Africa $467,600,000,000

28 Pakistan $446,100,000,000

29 Egypt $431,900,000,000

30 Belgium $378,900,000,000

[Smallc]

That doesn't show that our GDP is doing badly.

[bjre]

That doesn't show that our GDP is doing badly.

That doesn't show that our GDP is doing excellently.

[Smallc]

That doesn't show that our GDP is doing excellently.

But it does show that it's doing quite well in comparison to almost every other country in the world...including many above us on the list actually.

[bjre]

But it does show that it's doing quite well in comparison to almost every other country in the world...including many above us on the list actually.

Are we in recession now?

Aren't there lots of people lost their jobs?

Aren't there lots of people feel hard to apply EI?

[Smallc]

Are we in recession now?

Last I checked, almost the entire world was in recession.

[Wild Bill]

Of course, you focus on GDP because it proves your point. Unfortunately for your point, Canada is the 6th largest spender in NATO in terms of actual dollars and is close to the middle in per capita spending. We are ahead of the European average on per capita spending also. Just because I don't always take the view of that thinks that everything Canada does sucks and is bad doesn't mean I've embarrassed myself.

I would think that the math is elementary. Of course I focus on GDP. It's the ONLY way to make a true comparison!

Consider, if someone is poor and gets a $50 ticket it hurts far more than it does a millionaire in a Cadillac. If a country has a lot of money and makes a very small contribution compared to its GDP then it means much less than if a smaller country contributes a larger portion of its GDP.

How else can we fairly rank NATO partners? If we go by your yardstick and only look at the total dollars a country spends then a small country like Luxembourg could not contribute a respectable amount if it gave its TOTAL GDP!

I don't follow your logic when you equate pointing out our country's failings in one area to mean a critic must think that "everything Canada does sucks and is bad". The converse of your premise is that everything Canada does must be great! That is just jingoism and makes no sense. You just disallowed any criticism at all.

I watched for decades as Liberal governments sent our men and women out ill-equipped. As far as I'm concerned, that clearly shows how much they valued their lives!

You might want to google up the song "Sea Kings In the Sun", a satire written by some Canadian troops on how they are forced to fly in helicopters that are so old they keep crashing, killing those aboard. We've lost TOO MANY for no good reason than Chretien had a petty tiff with Mulroney and killed buying new ones!

Hell SmallC, they sent our boys to Afghanistan with Arctic camouflage! The soldiers had to scrounge for themselves, with their own money!

The Liberal party should have been forced to use a Sea King shuttle service around Ottawa during those times. If they wanted to BS us all that the copters were safe then they should have put their money where their mouth was. Instead, we witnessed how a certain Liberal Defense Minister somehow had a last minute kink in his plans that prevented him from flying in a Sea King.

After all these years I'm still disgusted!

[bjre]

Last I checked, almost the entire world was in recession.

That is why we need to solve the economy problems first.

[bjre]

they sent our boys to Afghanistan with Arctic camouflage! The soldiers had to scrounge for themselves, with their own money!

They should ask all our boys and girls back, who should have the very basic human right to survive, stop the killing and being killed game.

Edited May 7, 2009 by bjre

[Smallc]

How else can we fairly rank NATO partners?

Since NATO uses multiple metrics itself and puts the GDP metric on pages that follow the total dollar metric, I think we can use the method that NATO does. Canada is the 6th largest spender in NATO. The fact that we only contribute 1.3% of GDP is irrelevant to that fact.

After all these years I'm still disgusted!

It seems that you're making political decisions based on emotion again. Oh...and how many Sea Kings have crashed recently?

Edited May 7, 2009 by Smallc

[Smallc]

You just disallowed any criticism at all.

People are free to criticize. They do it all of the time...all of the time. They are and should be free to do so. I feel that someone has to point out the other side of things...as there always is another side.

[Wild Bill]

Since NATO uses multiple metrics itself and puts the GDP metric on pages that follow the total dollar metric, I think we can use the method that NATO does. Canada is the 6th largest spender in NATO. The fact that we only contribute 1.3% of GDP is irrelevant to that fact.

It seems that you're making political decisions based on emotion again. Oh...and how many Sea Kings have crashed recently?

Another emotional shot!

Oh well, if that's how the math looks to you there's no point in me arguing with you. I'm a 'techie'. To me, a volt will shove an amp through an ohm. To you, it would seem that folks could argue about the figures!

How many Sea Kings have crashed recently? I can't think of any, since the Liberals left power!

You might also ask, how many were deemed safe to be sent to our Afghan mission? How many maintenance hours does it take for every one hour of flight time?

How many Liberals would be willing to fly in one?

Actually, I withdraw that one. It's unfair. No one in their right mind should willingly ride in a Canadian Sea King!

[Smallc]

You might also ask, how many were deemed safe to be sent to our Afghan mission?

Actually, the Defence Department stated that the Sea King could have been used in Afghanistan, the problem had to do with it's inability to meet certain mission requirements. Also, it lacks the protective armour necessary for most hostile operations.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/26/sea-king.html

As for your last line, CF personnel ride in the Sea King every day. Yes, it should have been replaced, but it hasn't been yet because it's replacement is behind schedule.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Smallc