Smallc Posted May 5, 2009 Report Posted May 5, 2009 Destroyers, We don't need those until 2017 according to the plan compiled by the government and the military. AOR's We're still going to get those, but they will be a couple of years late. The ones that we have will be kept at sea as long as needed. coastal patrol ships, The ones we have are too small, yes, and that is the reason that the 3 heavy icebreakers were instead changed into 6 - 8 3 ocean patrol ships. Subs ,Ummm don't we have 4 that are still undergoing upgrades? Or do you mean different ones? I think that we should just get rid of them altogether and focus on the surface fleet. Troop ship, Why? Fighters, We're spending billions upgrading the ones that we have. They aren't due for replacement until almost 2020. It doesn't make any sense to buy something before we need it. refuelers, We've got CC150s and CC130s that are outfitted to do that. martime patrol a/c, Again, we're upgrading the ones that we have and they aren't due for replacement until 2020. They are within the next few years going to be augmented with the sensor system that is being put in place in the arctic as well as UAVs UAV's, We just got new ones. Sure, more would be nice, but we just got new ones. new LAV fleet, Didn't we just get that not all that many years ago? Yes, I'm sure they;'ll need replacement soon, and there's no reason to think that they won't be replaced as the light armour fleet seems to be kept relatively well outfitted. new med wheel logistic truck fleet, Domestic use fleet contract has been signed and they are still working out the details on the armored portion of the fleet. new arty pieces, Did they not just buy new ones? Are they not currently buying more and larger ones? Quote
Smallc Posted May 5, 2009 Report Posted May 5, 2009 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.... I was simply speaking in terms of the time frame since the mutual assistance pact of a couple years ago. Yeah, we have needed their help before...but they've also needed ours. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 5, 2009 Report Posted May 5, 2009 I was simply speaking in terms of the time frame since the mutual assistance pact of a couple years ago. Yeah, we have needed their help before...but they've also needed ours. No need to get defensive about needing / wanting help, even for such a narrow timeframe. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted May 5, 2009 Report Posted May 5, 2009 No need to get defensive about needing / wanting help, even for such a narrow timeframe. I wasn't getting defensive at all. I was simply pointing out that only the US has sued the agreement thus far from what I know. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 5, 2009 Report Posted May 5, 2009 ...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.... I think that is the key thing that a lot of people miss....op tempo for people and kit is crazy out of wack for sustainability. The burn-out just exacerbates resources already stretched past the max. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted May 5, 2009 Report Posted May 5, 2009 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.... Besides the German tanks, what is being rented? According to the government website, everything else has been purchased. Quote
jdobbin Posted May 5, 2009 Report Posted May 5, 2009 I'm afraid military life and politics do not mix well. They're going to have to if you want your issues addressed. There are plenty of speaches , papers, written by both sides of the border, all dated within the last 5 years.... Are these by the same yahoos who don't know Canada is in Afghanistan? 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 that is what happened in say 1997 when the military was assisting in the Manitoba flood. 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.... And you can't spend $150 billion in one year without running into problems of finding companies and people to do the work, watching inflation and avoiding $200 hammers. 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.... Many of these things are already on order or in the works. I am less convinced on the subs. The military and the government got suckered on the British subs and I think they are a waste of money and people. I would have rather spent the money on 2 to four destroyers. just a key piont thats things we need it's not a wish list or a nice to have....it's a need list.... I question the need for the subs and I think many Canadians would question getting new ones when the ones we have have been useless. 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.... Has there being soldiers dying because of lack of equipment? I know soldiers have died because insurgents have used varied tactics but the government seems to keep supplying the equipment needed to combat these tactics. The Iltis was used at first because it was considered versatile in the narrow streets. When it proved vulnerable, the government rushed in G-Wagons. When the G-Wagons proved vulnerable, the government moved in tanks. When the tanks proved less versatile for troop movements, the government moved in armoured carriers. When the armoured carriers proved vulnerable, the government moved in helicopters. Sad to say but if the insurgent tactics find vulnerabilities with the helicopters, we will probably send in CF-18s. It will always be hard to find an insurgency. Even with large numbers of soldiers and the best equipment, it is usually a political settlement that stops it. 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.... I have had no problems with the increases in the money going to the forces (aside from questions about Canada's need for subs). I am concerned if the increases reach double digits each year. I have never seen a procurement project that ever hit budget and it seems that we are always getting ripped off by the builders. The "git r dun" crowd might be able to overlook a $200 hammer but Canadian taxpayers certainly throw their arms up in the air when they hear about it. I have no problem with a Royal Commission on the future of the military. I don't think we can assume that all the knowledge on the subject is limited to what we have heard so far. Quote
Smallc Posted May 5, 2009 Report Posted May 5, 2009 (edited) According to this years NATO document on military spending, we are still the 6th highest. This year, we will spend $19.5B US on our military. http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2009/p09-009.pdf Edited May 5, 2009 by Smallc Quote
M.Dancer Posted May 5, 2009 Report Posted May 5, 2009 According to this years NATO document on military spending, we are still the 6th highest. This year, we will spend $19.5B US on our military.http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2009/p09-009.pdf According to that, as a % of GDP there are at least 12 countries that spend more.... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Smallc Posted May 5, 2009 Report Posted May 5, 2009 According to that, as a % of GDP there are at least 12 countries that spend more.... Yes, but percentage of GDP has little to do with actual dollars. Quote
M.Dancer Posted May 5, 2009 Report Posted May 5, 2009 Yes, but percentage of GDP has little to do with actual dollars. It is a better way of comparing who is puling their weight....now what we are spending now is catch up money....spent nada for so long we are forced to rebuild and buy equipment we should have bought 15 years ago...Do you know how old the chinook design is ? We used to have them, long ago.... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 5, 2009 Report Posted May 5, 2009 ...Do you know how old the chinook design is ? We used to have them, long ago.... No worries...you still have those equally old Sea Kings, no? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted May 5, 2009 Report Posted May 5, 2009 It is a better way of comparing who is puling their weight Maybe...and maybe not. I think the fact that we are in the top 15 in total spending should show that we are spending a large amount. ....now what we are spending now is catch up money....spent nada for so long We spent less for a time, but even then, our spending was not all that low in actual dollars. we are forced to rebuild and buy equipment we should have bought 15 years ago That is true to an extent. Do you know how old the chinook design is ? We used to have them, long ago.... There are many things that have an old design. Since they are still building new ones, I think that's less relevant. Quote
M.Dancer Posted May 6, 2009 Report Posted May 6, 2009 There are many things that have an old design. Since they are still building new ones, I think that's less relevant. Oh it's relevant all right. We choose the chinook because we putzed around so long we didn't have time to shop ...we needed a troop transport the day before yesterday....had we never sold off our chinook fleet we would have had the luxary of shopping and seeing what else is out there.... And there are indeed quite a few... On the otherhand, there is the LH-101 fiasco to remind us about b uying big ticket helicopters.... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Smallc Posted May 6, 2009 Report Posted May 6, 2009 Oh it's relevant all right. We choose the chinook because we putzed around so long we didn't have time to shop ... No, it's because the government didn't want to buy anything else. If we wanted helicopters right away, the Chinook (I'm talking about the new ones, not the used ones we bought from the US) was certainly not the way to go as the first one won't arrive for over 2 years. Quote
M.Dancer Posted May 6, 2009 Report Posted May 6, 2009 No, it's because the government didn't want to buy anything else. If we wanted helicopters right away, the Chinook (I'm talking about the new ones, not the used ones we bought from the US) was certainly not the way to go as the first one won't arrive for over 2 years. And you think 2 years is a long time? Do you remember the delivery on the Merlins? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Smallc Posted May 6, 2009 Report Posted May 6, 2009 (edited) And you think 2 years is a long time? Do you remember the delivery on the Merlins? When the contract was signed it was 5 years away. My point is, that isn't fast. Those helicopters are what the government wanted and that's why we bought them. Edited May 6, 2009 by Smallc Quote
Army Guy Posted May 6, 2009 Report Posted May 6, 2009 Destroyers, We don't need those until 2017 according to the plan compiled by the government and the military. Built in 1972, upgraded 91,92,94...you failed to mention that we had 4 of which one was converted to a reef because of it's age...that has got to say something....there is no prgram in place to upgrade these ships once again...2 out 3 ofthese ships are in fro refit, not to be confused with overhaul, just maintance....YAAA your right it's just the Navy guys.... AOR'sWe're still going to get those, but they will be a couple of years late. The ones that we have will be kept at sea as long as needed. Commisioned in 69 and 70, never recieved a major over haul, current JSS program has been postphoned, still looking for a contractor...DND is rethinking JSS concept and now leaning towrds a regular single mission AOR...No date set for completion ...piont of note these have been promised to be replace in the mid 90's....But hey we are still getting them, we just don't know what....... coastal patrol ships,The ones we have are too small, yes, and that is the reason that the 3 heavy icebreakers were instead changed into 6 - 8 3 ocean patrol ships. Once again a design has not even been chosen, and the Mine warefare ships are still being used in a patrol capacity.... Subs,Ummm don't we have 4 that are still undergoing upgrades? Or do you mean different ones? I think that we should just get rid of them altogether and focus on the surface fleet. 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, Troop ship,Why? 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... Fighters,We're spending billions upgrading the ones that we have. They aren't due for replacement until almost 2020. It doesn't make any sense to buy something before we need it. 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 .... refuelers,We've got CC150s and CC130s that are outfitted to do that. We have 2 CC150 that are still being converted to refuelers, and 2 C-130 kits for 80 aircraft martime patrol a/c,Again, we're upgrading the ones that we have and they aren't due for replacement until 2020. They are within the next few years going to be augmented with the sensor system that is being put in place in the arctic as well as UAVs 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.... UAV's,We just got new ones. Sure, more would be nice, but we just got new ones. 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 .... new LAV fleet,Didn't we just get that not all that many years ago? Yes, I'm sure they;'ll need replacement soon, and there's no reason to think that they won't be replaced as the light armour fleet seems to be kept relatively well outfitted. 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.....there is a critical shortage of these vehs, units in Canada have 1/3 to 1/2 the amounts they are suppose to have.... new arty pieces,Did they not just buy new ones? Are they not currently buying more and larger ones? 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.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted May 6, 2009 Report Posted May 6, 2009 Besides the German tanks, what is being rented? According to the government website, everything else has been purchased. we still have those civilian helos....yes they are still there and flying mission when i left.... UAV's our current UAV's are rented from some firm in the US, we do have another version over there and it is military operated but the others are civilian owned and operated.... The RORO ship used to bring in bulk and hvy stores.... Tank haulers are rented of the Dutch i think it might be some sort of barter agreement, i don't know what as they got every thing over here from attack helos, fighters, tanks, the whole works.... Sat time is rented , no not to watch the hockey games....for militay stuff There is tonnes of stuff we rent....and still rent... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted May 6, 2009 Report Posted May 6, 2009 Are these by the same yahoos who don't know Canada is in Afghanistan? That would depend if you think mackenize and Hillier are yaahoos And you can't spend $150 billion in one year without running into problems of finding companies and people to do the work, watching inflation and avoiding $200 hammers. Your right but we need to move alot faster than we are now.... I am less convinced on the subs. The military and the government got suckered on the British subs and I think they are a waste of money and people. I would have rather spent the money on 2 to four destroyers. The Navy probably agrees with you, but those Subs where a polictical purchase not a DND need.....besides according to the navy we need a submerged capability..... Has there being soldiers dying because of lack of equipment? You've heard the stories....and while you can blame it on changing tactics....i blame it on lack of drive to purchase the right equipment...until enough soldiers have died and the citizens demand something happen... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
jdobbin Posted May 6, 2009 Report Posted May 6, 2009 That would depend if you think mackenize and Hillier are yaahoos I consider MacKenzie to be a Conservative. His criticisms often reflect partisan jabs at the Liberals. 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. Your right but we need to move alot faster than we are now.... 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. The Navy probably agrees with you, but those Subs where a polictical purchase not a DND need.....besides according to the navy we need a submerged capability..... 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. The Brits must be laughing their asses off on Canada for buying them. You've heard the stories....and while you can blame it on changing tactics....i blame it on lack of drive to purchase the right equipment...until enough soldiers have died and the citizens demand something happen... 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. Quote
Argus Posted May 6, 2009 Author Report Posted May 6, 2009 Ayup, it's akin to handing over a blank cheque to a supplier. The alternative, of course, is to go through the entire dnd procurement process, and buy something twice as expensive, ten years after we need it, probably having spent more money on the paperwork and processing and meetings and project work within the government than we'll actually spend on the goods we buy. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 6, 2009 Report Posted May 6, 2009 (edited) The alternative, of course, is to go through the entire dnd procurement process, and buy something twice as expensive, ten years after we need it, probably having spent more money on the paperwork and processing and meetings and project work within the government than we'll actually spend on the goods we buy. Correct...this is the path that has been followed, purposely so, regardless of the impact on readiness and mission capabilities. From internecine fighting over sourcing and employment between regions, to bloated one-size must fit all requirements that changes a horse into a camel. The most comical display is curiously reserved for rotary winged aircraft...nothing seems to vex Canada more than these well understood machines. It is one thing to blow $200 on a mil-spec hammer, it is quite another to have no hammers at all when you need them. Edited May 6, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Argus Posted May 6, 2009 Author Report Posted May 6, 2009 The director of the Rideau Institute wrote the report in 2007.Here is is. http://www.policyalternatives.ca/documents...he_Cold_War.pdf 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. And being who they are, the report is utter trash, of course as J.L. Granatstein makes clear This argument is nonsense. During the height of the Cold War, Canada spent more than seven per cent of GDP on defence. The armed forces were tripled in size in a few years, vast quantities of equipment -- ships, aircraft, tanks --were purchased, and Canada deployed troops to fight in the Korean War and to take up defensive positions against a feared Soviet attack in Western Europe. Canada's military spending I might add that Granatstein was being too kind to the authors. There are a number of other factors accounting for our spending, such as the vastly more generous pay and benefits given to soldiers today, and the fact that, for example, the budgets for fisheries patrol and the coast guard were not included in the cold war calculations because those agencies were not under DND back then. 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. Thanks for confirming once again that you don't care what the numbers show just so long as you can take your angry shots. 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. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Peter F Posted May 6, 2009 Report Posted May 6, 2009 BC: The most comical display is curiously reserved for rotary winged aircraft...nothing seems to vex Canada more than these well understood machines.It is one thing to blow $200 on a mil-spec hammer, it is quite another to have no hammers at all when you need them. And it rises to another level of comedy altogether to proudly commit troops to combat ops with no idea that hammers are required at all! Can someone please explain why, in light of the above thread, its a really good idea to extend the mission? Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
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.