Smallc Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 And I really question the need to have purchased 4 C-177 Globemasters. Nice to have the airlift capacity, but I have to wonder if they are worth the purchase price along with their operational costs. I would say they were worth it...before DART wasn't able to live up to it's name...no it can if and when it's needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 Need I remind you that the Tories have been government since 2006. What has your party done to change how DND runs?And your party is doing something about it? What exactly? Need I remind you of how many years the liberals have been in government and steps they have taken to convolute any acquisition process by the Armed forces. This conservative government may be the best government we have had in the last century but even they have limits on what they are able to accomplish in a 3 year period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre Rider Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 I would say they were worth it...before DART wasn't able to live up to it's name...no it can if and when it's needed. Again true, however the deal seemed rather rushed to me, I cannot help but wonder if we could not of gotten more for less if we sourced from non-traditional sources. Russian aviation has a long history of building excellent civilian and military heavy lift cargo aircraft which are just as modern and up to date as any in the west. I wonder how much we might of saved or how many more A/C we could of gotten had we gone with a Russian airframe, matched up with Rolls Royce engines and Canadian spec avionics. The deal made with Boeing seems a tad bit too reactive to me instead of being proactive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre Rider Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 Need I remind you of how many years the liberals have been in government and steps they have taken to convolute any acquisition process by the Armed forces. This conservative government may be the best government we have had in the last century but even they have limits on what they are able to accomplish in a 3 year period. Sorry to disagree with you, you being a true believer and all that, but the Tories record is on par with that of the Liberals......f'ing pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 Again true, however the deal seemed rather rushed to me Agreed. The Conservatives have done that more than once. I would say that sole source contracts are not the way to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre Rider Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 Agreed. The Conservatives have done that more than once. I would say that sole source contracts are not the way to go. Ayup, it's akin to handing over a blank cheque to a supplier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 (edited) .... I wonder how much we might of saved or how many more A/C we could of gotten had we gone with a Russian airframe, matched up with Rolls Royce engines and Canadian spec avionics. The deal made with Boeing seems a tad bit too reactive to me instead of being proactive. Certainly an option, but it would have required relaxing some of those specifications, notably operations on short / narrow runways. Edited May 4, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre Rider Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 Certainly an option, but it would have required relaxing some of those specifications, notably operations on short / narrow runways. Perhaps not, most Russian military aircraft including their cargo lifters are designed to operate from very rough and short runways, mainly because Russia has a hell of a lot of them. Even many of their front line combat aircraft and fighters can operate from runways that our front line fighters couldn't use. A lot of people in the west poo-poo Russian and Soviet equipment, however while they maybe rough in appearance, they do the job they are meant to do and generally do it well. That being said, had I been a tanker, I'd of not wanted to serve in a T-72 as a gunner, the self-loader they used had a nasty habit of feeding the gunners arm into the breach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Perhaps not, most Russian military aircraft including their cargo lifters are designed to operate from very rough and short runways, mainly because Russia has a hell of a lot of them. Even many of their front line combat aircraft and fighters can operate from runways that our front line fighters couldn't use. That's why they sell so many of them...eh? A lot of people in the west poo-poo Russian and Soviet equipment, however while they maybe rough in appearance, they do the job they are meant to do and generally do it well. That being said, had I been a tanker, I'd of not wanted to serve in a T-72 as a gunner, the self-loader they used had a nasty habit of feeding the gunners arm into the breach. Saddam bet his ass on Russian kit upgraded with cheap stadimeters from China. It wasn't a pretty sight (pun intended). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Need I remind you of how many years the liberals have been in government and steps they have taken to convolute any acquisition process by the Armed forces. This conservative government may be the best government we have had in the last century but even they have limits on what they are able to accomplish in a 3 year period. Oh my. Best government in a century, huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Then I take it you won't vote for either next time If that is all i looked for in a party i'd say yes, Is that what the upper brass wants as well? It's been a topic of a few military papers, and i'd say yes....most of these distractions go over budget and that overage is taken out of the DND operating budget.... And what size military will be required for that? You say to meet our basic mandates? Would that be a military of about 2 to 3 million people and a large chunk of our GDP devoted to military spending? I'd say between 100 and 125 k should be enough, Basic mandates such as providing defence, providing for all our agreements and enforcing our foreign policy. It might surprise you that most in the military don't want a huge military, just enough to do the tasks assigned to us from the government.. Are we in that much danger of losing our country that we need a military the size of what we had in World War II? nobody said anything about the size of WWII military.....But it would be nice to be able to properly defend our nation .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 I'd say between 100 and 125 k should be enough, Basic mandates such as providing defence, providing for all our agreements and enforcing our foreign policy. It might surprise you that most in the military don't want a huge military, just enough to do the tasks assigned to us from the government.. nobody said anything about the size of WWII military.....But it would be nice to be able to properly defend our nation .... Here's the problem as I see it- the government assigns the military to fight wars based on politics, international treaties, pressure from outside. I think many Canadians would sign up very quickly if the threat was to our country, but to go fight a war that really makes no difference at home, that doesn't sit well with a highly educated, informed public. Thats for people who want to go fight, regardless of the reason. I am saying, to join the military means in a certain way to give trust to the government, that they will send you on the right mission, and provide the support necessary to win. You will put your life on the line for this. Under the right circumstances I would consider doing it. But, when I see people like Peter Mackay... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Here's the problem as I see it- the government assigns the military to fight wars based on politics, international treaties, pressure from outside. I think many Canadians would sign up very quickly if the threat was to our country, but to go fight a war that really makes no difference at home, that doesn't sit well with a highly educated, informed public. Thats for people who want to go fight, regardless of the reason. One of the driving factors for Canada to be apart of it's current treaties, and agreements is because it does not have the means or will to properly defend itself....And i will agree Canadians have a long history of signing up to do thier share for the defence of this nation or the world... Let's not forget that close to 30 Canadians died in the downing of the towers, victims of a terrorist attack.... Canadian military has a pretty good selctive process when it comes down to recruiting, those that join just for a chance to fight are normally weeded out....that process is continued through out everything the miltiary does to ensure thier is a good and healthy mental balance in our soldiers.... I am saying, to join the military means in a certain way to give trust to the government, that they will send you on the right mission, and provide the support necessary to win. You will put your life on the line for this. And for the most part our governments have chosen the correct missions, they just have not done so well in providing us the support to win....but then again that is where the quality of our soldiers comes in... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 If that is all i looked for in a party i'd say yes, Then please forgive me for saying that support for a party that wastes your tax money only encourages it to do more. You become part of the problem. It's been a topic of a few military papers, and i'd say yes....most of these distractions go over budget and that overage is taken out of the DND operating budget.... One might assume a smaller military if you took away some of the things you consider to be distractions. I'd say between 100 and 125 k should be enough, Basic mandates such as providing defence, providing for all our agreements and enforcing our foreign policy. It might surprise you that most in the military don't want a huge military, just enough to do the tasks assigned to us from the government.. And have their been cost estimates to this? I have never heard of a military that was content with the numbers it had. nobody said anything about the size of WWII military.....But it would be nice to be able to properly defend our nation .... I'd have to see the break downs of what constituted defending the nation. Defence has to come under the same scrutiny as any other department for waste as well as effectiveness. As I've said, I've never heard of a military that was happy with its share of the budget, the size of its force and the equipment it uses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Then please forgive me for saying that support for a party that wastes your tax money only encourages it to do more. You become part of the problem. As do we all, but it does not stop someone from wanting reform does it... As I've said, I've never heard of a military that was happy with its share of the budget, the size of its force and the equipment it uses. True enough, but in Canada's case it is not just our military that has been crying for more funding, other nations, other groups such as NATO, NORAD, all have been quoted as saying Canada is a free loader when it comes to it's commitments....and hey there has been plenty of media coverage, even signs such as Floods and ice storms.... small events that take almost all of our military forces to respond to....hence why we have agreements with the US for thier assistance....now if a huricane or earth quake was to cause a large event....who would respond... But i guess it would be easier to sit down and ingnore our military, because every military whines for more of everything....it's easy placing our soldiers lives indanger because we were to cheap to properly equip them for the jobs we did send them on....i mean it is what they signed up for...sure we'll shake there hands say thanks maybe buy them a beer....hear a few war stories....but when it comes to more tax dollars hell no way.... it is what makes us Canadian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 (edited) I will suggest that Canada needs to rethink its defensive capabilities. After all, defense is more relevant than most other concerns for the federal government. The nature of the beast is such that we will always need some form of military, and that they will at some point be compelled to act in the interests of citizens. Our sorry excuse for a navy is the ideal place to begin with any modifications to our defensive posture. Some folks on here think that we have an awful lot of hulls in the water and that means we have an adequate defense. The reality is much different. "Canada's 33 warships, submarines, and coastal defense vessels are divided more or less evenly between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts." There is no Arctic fleet. Unfortunately we also require sufficient air assets to protect our Arctic territory because all we can apply to this area in terms of naval assets is submarines. I will again state that this represents an opportunity in the form of problem resolution in this respect. Many jobs and businesses will be created in order to solve this problem. Tax dollars will be created in the effort, in fact it can really be said that we have the means available to offset much economic pressure and fiscal pressure by simply addressing this matter of national security. Edited May 5, 2009 by Jerry J. Fortin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Our old policy was superb in comparison to mimicing the American one of projected power which is offensive - we used to have a noble force that concentrated on defence and assistance of those that needed protection - I really don't believe that our present policy what ever that might be will be long lasting... no one likes a vicarious old lady with a gun - we were respected - IF - we had entered Afghanistan with our old original policy of peace keepers and protectors - we would have made friends by now...BUT America has no friends - and they want us to be the same - I think they are like the nasty woman that house wrecks a marriage out of sheer spite - because she can not have a good husband - she makes sure that no one can - It could have been envy on the part of the Americans to have prodded us forward into an uncharacteristic role. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Our old policy was superb in comparison to mimicing the American one of projected power which is offensive - we used to have a noble force that concentrated on defence and assistance of those that needed protection .... Well, just checking your math, it doesn't add up....not for the Boer Wars, WWI, WW2, Korea, Gulf War I, Bosnia, Kosovo, or Afghanistan. Even Cyprus wasn't "defence", and everyone passed on Rwanda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 As do we all, but it does not stop someone from wanting reform does it... And that only comes from voting for some other party or running yourself. True enough, but in Canada's case it is not just our military that has been crying for more funding, other nations, other groups such as NATO, NORAD, all have been quoted as saying Canada is a free loader when it comes to it's commitments....and hey there has been plenty of media coverage, even signs such as Floods and ice storms.... small events that take almost all of our military forces to respond to....hence why we have agreements with the US for thier assistance....now if a huricane or earth quake was to cause a large event....who would respond... I have not heard the argument that we are free loading for quite some time. As for responding to disasters, isn't that what you want the military not involve with? The U.S. also agreements for our assistance. I seem to remember members of our police and military were present on the ground after Katrina faster than U.S. forces in some cases. But i guess it would be easier to sit down and ingnore our military, because every military whines for more of everything....it's easy placing our soldiers lives indanger because we were to cheap to properly equip them for the jobs we did send them on....i mean it is what they signed up for...sure we'll shake there hands say thanks maybe buy them a beer....hear a few war stories....but when it comes to more tax dollars hell no way.... it is what makes us Canadian I don't think the military is being ignored at the moment. It hasn't for almost a decade. In fact, it keeps getting increases in spending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 The U.S. also agreements for our assistance. I seem to remember members of our police and military were present on the ground after Katrina faster than U.S. forces in some cases. Yes, and in fact, as far as I know, we have been asked for help by the US but we have never had to ask for their help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 I don't think the military is being ignored at the moment. It hasn't for almost a decade. In fact, it keeps getting increases in spending. Exactly. This is really about people's perceptions lagging reality. Yes, I know that Army Guy is in the Military, but it seems that even in the military people have not acknowledged the very large increase in spending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 (edited) Yes, and in fact, as far as I know, we have been asked for help by the US but we have never had to ask for their help. Nope...Canada didn't have to ask....the utility workers and fire jumpers just show up like magic. Edited May 5, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Nope...Canada didn't have to ask....the utility workers and fire jumpers just show up like magic. I'm talking about the recent military assistance pact that the US used to ask for help last fall in Louisiana and Florida. Civilian help has crossed the border back and forth for a long time. You don't have to get defensive, that wasn't any kind of shot at your country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 And that only comes from voting for some other party or running yourself. I'm afraid military life and politics do not mix well. I have not heard the argument that we are free loading for quite some time. There are plenty of speaches , papers, written by both sides of the border, all dated within the last 5 years.... As for responding to disasters, isn't that what you want the military not involve with? There is a major difference in responding to a disaster when required, and footing the entire bill for planning, preparations supplies, etc etc I don't think the military is being ignored at the moment. It hasn't for almost a decade. In fact, it keeps getting increases in spending. hey you can't just spend a few bil , couple of C-17's , a CC150, contract for C130J and were good as new... over the last 6 years and expect to erode a repair bill well into the 100 to 150 bil range.... lets take a look at some things DND really needs Destroyers, AOR's, coastal patrol ships, Subs, Troop ship, Fighters, refuelers, martime patrol a/c, UAV's, new LAV fleet, new med wheel logistic truck fleet, New Hvy wheeled logistic truck fleet, new arty pieces, Spec ops equipment, Motars 120mm, tank upgrades, Sat capabilites, new comms equipment, winter suvival gear, combat equipment, pistols, etc etc ...the list would probably be shorter if we listesd the things we don't need.... just a key piont thats things we need it's not a wish list or a nice to have....it's a need list.... And while everyone in the military is extremily greatful at the increases in military funding you can't just throw up your arms now and say where done....almost everything we have purchased todate soldiers have paid for those upgrades with thier lifes....and frankly it's getting pretty boring to have to have soldiers die in order to get tax dollars to fix something that should have been fixed before the deployment started.... i know both of you support our military, but guys it is in terriable shape, and i'm not pionting fingers at anyone or any party, but something needs to get down....just to bring it up to modern levels....shit mech inf Bn only have enough LAV's for 1/2 to a 1/3 of thier peace time allotments....thats sad....and now we are burning out vehs faster, because we have to rotate them thru the 3 rifle companies and one support company the vehs never get a break....alot of our equipemnt is one of a kind, available only in Afghan, and those capabilities are rented or will be returned after that mission is completed.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Yes, and in fact, as far as I know, we have been asked for help by the US but we have never had to ask for their help. Not true during the winnipeg floods the US NAVY had helos rescuing people off the roof tops , also the US Airforce assisted in moving our equipment and supplys around the country... During the Ice storms US military assistance was also there.... 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.