Battle over soldiers scholarship

[Wilber]

The US have about 30 times the military power that we do (if not a bit more) because they spend more than 30 times what we do. It is relative, but I said we could project power, I didn't say we have to be able to project lots of power. We have even been able to help the US at at times (hurricanes for example). Comparisons to the US really aren't fair for any country. Bill Maher not too long ago said that the US has more ships in its navy than the next 13 largest combined, 11 of those being American allies (we being one of those). You're right, it is relative, but we still have projection power, even if it's among the smallest of the group of countries who can project power.

We cannot project power except as a member of an alliance. We need to remember that before we start patting ourselves on the back. For example, we have no air assets in Afghanistan, we rely on the Americans and the Brits. Early on our military realized we would be unable to support our own in this theater.

[Smallc]

I wonder how many Canadians would be willing to see a tax increase (or spending cuts to health care) in order to project power over the world like the USA does (even if it was only 1/10th as much).

Absurd.

That's exactly my point. Taking our military budget from 13th to 2nd at over $70B (1/10 the US amount) would be nearly impossible. That is nearly the entire federal program spending budget.

[Wilber]

That's exactly my point. Taking our military budget from 13th to 2nd at over $70B (1/10 the US amount) would be nearly impossible. That is nearly the entire federal program spending budget.

I'm not suggesting we should spend 10% of what they do, just pointing out that we aren't even within howitzer distance.

[Smallc]

I'm not suggesting we should spend 10% of what they do, just pointing out that we aren't even within howitzer distance.

Of the US, no. Of most countries...yes...and past when it comes to the ability to project force abroad. It will only get better over the next ten years.

[Wilber]

Of the US, no. Of most countries...yes...and past when it comes to the ability to project force abroad. It will only get better over the next ten years.

I think this country's attitude towards its military makes that unlikely.

[msj]

I'm not suggesting we should spend 10% of what they do, just pointing out that we aren't even within howitzer distance.

Okay, so Canada spends about 1.3% of our GDP ($19 billion) on defence while the US spends about 4.0% ($600 billion).

What amount would bring us to "howitzer distance?"

How do you propose to raise/reallocate the money to pay for this?

Why is it necessary to spend $38/$57/$76 billion on defence per year as compared to other items in the federal budget to get us to "howitzer distance?"

[Smallc]

Okay, so Canada spends about 1.3% of our GDP ($19 billion) on defence while the US spends about 4.0% ($600 billion).

Taking into account Afghanistan, it's over $21B. The US, including special programs such as the wars, is running close to $800B.

[Smallc]

.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Smallc

[M.Dancer]

It is relative, but I said we could project power, I didn't say we have to be able to project lots of power.

You have a very liberal definition of what "projecting power means".

We do not have the ability to project power unless before hand the power has already been projected. I do not consider relief flights projecting power, not when the same can be sone with leased equipment.

[Army Guy]

And so again, how much should we spend, and where should it come from? That is the ultimate question. We don't have unlimited funds.

Well this year alone Canadians recieved 20 Bil in tax cuts....That in itself would go along way to reducing our debt and fund some more depts....all without increaseing taxes....and if you look at the national Budget there are dozens of programs in there that could be trimed or taken out completely...So ya there are funds, out there we just need to look at all these programs and ask ourselfs do we really need them....

All fully funded under the current plan.

LAV veh fleet: Currently being modified to rebuild current fleet....no new vehs in the forecast...

,New Patrol veh,: Entire program has been shelved, postphoned until when ever....

New Recce Veh,: This program has been postphoned as well No fuinding available....

new Logistic wheeled vehs,: In the works, still no funding or contract....

New AOR's : This program of JSS has been shelved,no funding ,no contract, no design, not even a builder interested....

New destroyers : Come on nothing is even on the screens , sure we have a few guys doing some research, but nothing planned ,

New SAR aircraft: Sole sourceing has this program stuck in limbo, last i read we could expect something operational near 2017....and yet no funding or contract in place...

replacement for F-18,....Yes we've put funding away for this to pay for our access to tech , but we've yet to indicate or even sign onto the F-35 yet...so really this project is in limbo....

So my question is were is the funding...and if funding was available we should atleast have a project reporting everything is fine on scedule, contractors picked out....

You were mostly right up to there. There are very few power projection militaries in the world. We happen to be one. We've proven it more than once recently. But, if you want sea projection, we should have that if the JSS is anything close to what was originally planned.

Power projection (or force projection) is a term used in military and political science to refer to the capacity of a state to conduct expeditionary warfare, i.e. to intimidate other nations and implement policy by means of force, or the threat thereof, in an area distant from its own territory. This ability is a crucial element of a state's power in international relations. Any state able to direct its military forces outside the limited bounds of its territory might be said to have some level of power projection capability, but the term itself is used most frequently in reference to militaries with a worldwide reach (or at least significantly broader than a state's immediate area). Even states with sizable hard power assets (such as a large standing army) may only be able to exert limited regional influence so long as they lack the means of effectively projecting their power on a global scale. Generally, only a select few states are able to overcome the logistical difficulties inherent in the deployment and direction of a modern, mechanized military force.

While traditional measures of power projection typically focus on hard power assets (tanks, soldiers, aircraft, naval vessels, etc.), the developing theory of soft power notes that power projection does not necessarily have to involve the active use of military forces in combat. Assets for power projection can often serve dual uses, as the deployment of various countries' militaries during the humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake illustrates. The ability of a state to project its forces into an area may serve as an effective diplomatic lever, influencing the decision-making process and acting as a potential deterrent on other states' behavior.

My linken.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Like what? What can't we carry? Between the CC-177, CC-130, CC-150, and the permanent civilian charter ship, what do we rely on others for? We didn't seem to need much help from others getting to Haiti. And so, how many other nations can do this? They can probably be counted on two hands.

Tanks for one, Heavy armoured support vehs, and while yes we can carry more than one lav in a C-17 , it is a stratigic asset, these aircraft are not flown into a hostile airspace, thats what the hercs are for...and they only carry one stripped down lav at a time....So really any load wieghing over 50 tones is a no go...

Haiti what was needed in Haiti troops and supplies...nothing heavy...so ya haiti was a breeze....

Yes, the number of C-17 owners, is growing, but from what I've read, there are very few power projection militaries: The US, Russia, France, the UK, Australia, and Canada. There are very few other nations that can respond with speed and power. We can.We couldn't before.

From what your saying all you need is a few C-17 type aircraft to project power then there is alot of nations that can...The France,Italy,Spain,China, India, Pakistan, Japan, Germany,Qutar, UAE, most of the old russian warsaw pact countries...to name a few...in fact there is alot more if you want to include Amphb forces....

You seem to want to paint a picture of us sucking. I don't see it, and I doubt Canadian see it after Haiti.

Having some big aircraft is not sucking , but it hardly puts us on the prower projection scale you think it does....like i said 4 c-17 might be able to get a company worth of men , supplies and vehs into battle hardly enough to scare any nation into action....but as a G-8 nation we should be able to do more than we can...

Right now we are still in recover mode, with alot of ground to cover just to maintain our current capabilities....there is room in our budget to make some major changes,aas little as 5 additional billion every year would allow us to knock off some of these major projects , lets not forget, alot of these projects we've have already lost or will lose those capabilities shortly....SAR aircraft i mean come on....how old are they....Destroyers, not to mention many capabilites we no longer have such as Amoured Self propelled Arty, a modern air defense sys, a 120mm motar platform, and each element has it's long list of problems...

[msj]

Well this year alone Canadians recieved 20 Bil in tax cuts....That in itself would go along way to reducing our debt and fund some more depts....all without increaseing taxes....and if you look at the national Budget there are dozens of programs in there that could be trimed or taken out completely...So ya there are funds, out there we just need to look at all these programs and ask ourselfs do we really need them....

1) I would like to see the link about the $20 billion in tax cuts for 2010 (or even 2009).

2) I take it that you are in the "lets raise taxes" to pay for more defence camp?

3) What programs could be trimmed?

4) You do realize that we already have a multi-billion dollar deficit for the next 5 years so any trimmings are likely to reduce the deficit rather than increase defence?

[Wilber]

Okay, so Canada spends about 1.3% of our GDP ($19 billion) on defence while the US spends about 4.0% ($600 billion).

What amount would bring us to "howitzer distance?"

How do you propose to raise/reallocate the money to pay for this?

Why is it necessary to spend $38/$57/$76 billion on defence per year as compared to other items in the federal budget to get us to "howitzer distance?"

Depends what we want to do with our military. As Dancer has pointed out, Canada isn't really in a position to "project power" at all. We can provide units that are effective as part of an alliance with others. That is not projecting power by any real definition.

[msj]

Depends what we want to do with our military. As Dancer has pointed out, Canada isn't really in a position to "project power" at all. We can provide units that are effective as part of an alliance with others. That is not projecting power by any real definition.

Clearly you don't like answering questions. How curmudgeonly of you.

So, do you want Canada to project Canada or not?

How much are YOU willing to pay for this? (Because I ain't)

[Wilber]

Clearly you don't like answering questions. How curmudgeonly of you.

So, do you want Canada to project Canada or not?

How much are YOU willing to pay for this? (Because I ain't)

Pay for what? You aren't so good at definining a position either. Do we need a military at all in your mind and if so, what purpose should it have and how much are you willing to pay for it?

[msj]

Pay for what? You aren't so good at definining a position either. Do we need a military at all in your mind and if so, what purpose should it have and how much are you willing to pay for it?

I'm for the status quo - about $20 billion a year, give or take depending on capital acquisitions.

In fact, I wouldn't mind a freeze in government funding for defence starting next year or the year after.

As for purpose, I don't care to project power.

How about to maintain our existing relationship with the US and NATO and, from time to time, put our troops in foreign lands so Canadians can die for various reasons that seem to be good at the time.

So, about $20 billion per year ought to do it.

[Army Guy]

1) I would like to see the link about the $20 billion in tax cuts for 2010 (or even 2009).

Sorry above quote was for 2009, in 2010 tax breaks amount to 3.5 bil.....

My linkwww.budget.gc.ca/2009

Tax Relief for Canadians

Budget 2009 will deliver $20 billion in personal income

tax relief over 2008–09 and the next five fiscal years. Effective

January 1, 2009, this includes:

Increasing the basic personal amount and the top of the two lowest

personal income tax brackets by 7.5 per cent above their 2008

levels, so that Canadians can earn more income before paying

federal income taxes or before being subject to higher tax rates.

Raising the level at which the National Child Benefit supplement

for low-income families and the Canada Child Tax Benefit are

phased out, providing a benefit of up to $436 for a family with

two children.

Effectively doubling the tax relief provided by the Working

Income Tax Benefit to encourage low-income Canadians to find

and retain a job.

Providing up to an additional $150 of annual tax savings for

low- and middle-income seniors through a $1,000 increase

to the Age Credit amount.

Introduction and Overview

2) I take it that you are in the "lets raise taxes" to pay for more defence camp?

No, i'm not about raising taxes, i'm about the even distribution of taxes, and not neglecting our military as i've grown qiut fond of my ass and would like to keep it....atleast for now...

3) What programs could be trimmed?

None, the link i provided you has plenty of excess if you look are you aware our government in 2009 spent over 85 bil in Improving Access to Financing and Strengthening Canada’s Financial System....if we can throw this amount around without blinking and yet choke when we talk about 5 extra bil for the military i think we have a problem....

4) You do realize that we already have a multi-billion dollar deficit for the next 5 years so any trimmings are likely to reduce the deficit rather than increase defence?

Have you read the budget reports , are you telling me everyone is chipping in to pay down this deficit we are in...if it is such a big deal then everyone should be touched....does that mean they can cancel our 3.5 bil in tax breaks this year....i'm good with that....but thats not what is happening the first place everyone looks is DND to suck it up....and what i'm saying what little meat is on the bone will be gone after we pull out of this event....

[Army Guy]

I'm for the status quo - about $20 billion a year, give or take depending on capital acquisitions.

Some of the basic capital aquisitions have been listed for you , 20 bil a year will not allow any of that to be purchased.....

As for purpose, I don't care to project power.

I'm sure those Canadians stuck in Lebanon did'nt give a rats ass either until they had to be rescued by our military forces in rented, borrowed , stolen equipment.... Having the right equipment is more than being able to project power, having grand schemes of conquoring the world, it's about defending Canada as a nation here at home and abroad....it's about giving those soldiers who have decided this is what they want to do...the tools to do it with....

How about to maintain our existing relationship with the US and NATO and, from time to time, put our troops in foreign lands so Canadians can die for various reasons that seem to be good at the time.

In order to be part of any alliance you must have something to offer, if our equipment is outdated or incompatable we are not going to be able to function as a team....your going to be sitting on the bench...

So, about $20 billion per year ought to do it.

Not even close....

[Smallc]

You have a very liberal definition of what "projecting power means".

We do not have the ability to project power unless before hand the power has already been projected. I do not consider relief flights projecting power, not when the same can be sone with leased equipment.

Well, much of what I've read in the media disagrees with you. I'm not just talking about relief flights.

[Smallc]

LAV veh fleet: Currently being modified to rebuild current fleet....no new vehs in the forecast...

That's right, they're being rebuilt.

,New Patrol veh,: Entire program has been shelved, postphoned until when ever....

New Recce Veh,: This program has been postphoned as well No fuinding available...

That's right, it's been postponed.

new Logistic wheeled vehs,: In the works, still no funding or contract....

Right on schedule.

New AOR's : This program of JSS has been shelved,no funding ,no contract, no design, not even a builder interested....

Almost none of that is true, look it up. It's been set back, it's still happening, and the same 2.9B in funding is still there.

New destroyers : Come on nothing is even on the screens , sure we have a few guys doing some research, but nothing planned ,

Again, not true, there's a sproject office and there is a design in the works behind the scenes for the SCSC.

New SAR aircraft: Sole sourceing has this program stuck in limbo, last i read we could expect something operational near 2017....and yet no funding or contract in place...

If you read the Canada First Defence Strategy, you'll see that the plane is needed for phase in starting in 2015. If we haven't signed the contract in two years, you can worry.

replacement for F-18,....Yes we've put funding away for this to pay for our access to tech , but we've yet to indicate or even sign onto the F-35 yet...so really this project is in limbo....

That's because DND is questioning whether the F-35 can meet our needs. 2017 - 2020 replacement date. If we haven't signed a contract in about 3 - 4 years, you can worry.

So my question is were is the funding...and if funding was available we should atleast have a project reporting everything is fine on scedule, contractors picked out....

So, what about the projects that have gone through? Over $30B worth in the last 4 years, including the CC-177, CC-130, MILCOTS logistics trucks, the CH-147..etc etc.

Tanks for one, Heavy armoured support vehs, and while yes we can carry more than one lav in a C-17 , it is a stratigic asset, these aircraft are not flown into a hostile airspace, thats what the hercs are for...and they only carry one stripped down lav at a time....So really any load wieghing over 50 tones is a no go...

So who carries that? And with what?

Haiti what was needed in Haiti troops and supplies...nothing heavy...so ya haiti was a breeze....

Is that why the permanent civilian charter went loaded with vehicles?

Having some big aircraft is not sucking , but it hardly puts us on the prower projection scale you think it does....like i said 4 c-17 might be able to get a company worth of men , supplies and vehs into battle hardly enough to scare any nation into action....but as a G-8 nation we should be able to do more than we can...

Says who?

.SAR aircraft i mean come on.

The military says we're in no danger of losing that. Sorry, but I don't buy your stories. I refuse to believe that the largest department budget in the government that is constantly growing isn't big enough going forward. You simply seem to think that the sky is falling, while things are getting better.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Some of the basic capital aquisitions have been listed for you , 20 bil a year will not allow any of that to be purchased.....

No, you're wrong. The military says it will. The government says it will. You say it won't. Who should I believe? Now, with the military losing $2.5B that they would have got, one project will have to be put back a bit...that's all, according to their plan.

I'm sure those Canadians stuck in Lebanon did'nt give a rats ass either until they had to be rescued by our military forces in rented, borrowed , stolen equipment.... Having the right equipment is more than being able to project power, having grand schemes of conquoring the world, it's about defending Canada as a nation here at home and abroad....it's about giving those soldiers who have decided this is what they want to do...the tools to do it with....

We wouldn't have the problems we did in Lebanon today. Again, Haiti showed that.

In order to be part of any alliance you must have something to offer, if our equipment is outdated or incompatable we are not going to be able to function as a team....your going to be sitting on the bench...

We have the 7th largest budget in NATO. Saying we have nothing to offer is rather misleading.

Not even close....

Prove it.

[Wilber]

I'm for the status quo - about $20 billion a year, give or take depending on capital acquisitions.

In fact, I wouldn't mind a freeze in government funding for defence starting next year or the year after.

As for purpose, I don't care to project power.

How about to maintain our existing relationship with the US and NATO and, from time to time, put our troops in foreign lands so Canadians can die for various reasons that seem to be good at the time.

So, about $20 billion per year ought to do it.

You may or may not be able to do that on 20 billion a year. Do you pick your causes according to your pocket book or according to what needs to be done?

[msj]

You may or may not be able to do that on 20 billion a year. Do you pick your causes according to your pocket book or according to what needs to be done?

Since you can't be bothered to answer any of my questions I won't be bothered to answer any more of yours...

[Army Guy]

No, you're wrong. The military says it will. The government says it will. You say it won't. Who should I believe? Now, with the military losing $2.5B that they would have got, one project will have to be put back a bit...that's all, according to their plan.

I don't think your understanding what i'm saying...With ONLY a 20 bil dollar budget and NO outside funding DND can not meet it's purcurment goals....All one has to do is take alook at the small slice DND has left for projects each year. and then cost each of the projects we have currently on the books... It would take decades just to replace the capabilities we currently have...

We wouldn't have the problems we did in Lebanon today. Again, Haiti showed that.

Thats Bull crap and you know it, we have not recieved any more new equipment since Lebanon with exception of the C-17's....Our Navy had to rent borrow, and steal....to get the equipment it needed to evac those people to cyprus where they bordered Civiy flights home to Canada....

C-17 Are stragic aircraft...meaning you don't risk them in a med intensity conflict, by landing them on an unsecured airfield...thats what we have Hercs for....and that option was struck of the list as it would have been to costly in regards to lifes lost...soldiers lives and civilians lives....we also had that rented RO RO ship you've talked about...but it could not get there in time , nor was it cleared for a combat zone as it's crew is civilian....So what did Haiti show us...I'm confused...

We have the 7th largest budget in NATO. Saying we have nothing to offer is rather misleading.

In time of conflict here is what NATO looks for.....Combat troops, yes we have them very good ones...but if we add up all our combat arms personel it's 12,500 that includes Inf ,Armoured, Arty, and Cbt Engs....

you do the math....

It looks for modern tanks....We do have 60 Leo IIA4's sitting in a warehouse waiting to be upgraded, we also have leo A4 about 40 sitting in Edmonton....but they were made in the 70's....

Looking for mordern CCV....we have LAVIII made for Med intensity combat at best....but ours are worn out

Looking for Heavy Arty...got none , sitting in a warehouse there to old

We do have up graded CF-18....but when your looking for mordern equipment CF-18 comes up at the bottom of the list....

We do have a Navy that performs very well with US fleets...Thats is a bonous for now...

We have x 4 C-17 excellent aircraft...but to few....

So what is it that we have to offer....i meqan when you put it into context we are a G-8 nation we are 7 th in spending in NATO....

LAV veh fleet: Currently being modified to rebuild current fleet....no new vehs in the forecast...

That's right, they're being rebuilt.

That is right.... the orginal project was to replace the LAV III with New built LAV H "built in Canada" and supplement that fleet with Rebuilt LAV III to the same standard....so there would be enough vehs in the forces for all that use them to have them....The Bn i'm in now is lucky we have 2 companies worth of LAV's out of 3 and a few support vehs ...other Bn are running one 1 companies worth vice 3.....

So the projects has been changed Now we will recieve rebuilt ones, have have to make do once again...with even less...as there is no vehs to replace the Battle losses in Afghan....

new Logistic wheeled vehs

Right on schedule.

On scedule, contract was signed in 2009, they were suppose to make 100 vehs a day according to the contract....well sir it's 2010 and still no sign of this veh at any of the Brigade units....must be stuck in traffic...What i will give you is that we have recieved the Milcot version, or should i say the reserves have, but those can not be used as they burst into flames every once in while....

CCV

My link

New Patrol veh,: Entire program has been shelved, postphoned until when ever....

New Recce Veh,: This program has been postphoned as well No fuinding available...

Not according to this article these projects have been canceled twice before already....and this veh is once again on the chopping block....

Tpav

My link

If you read the Canada First Defence Strategy, you'll see that the plane is needed for phase in starting in 2015. If we haven't signed the contract in two years, you can worry.

Really have you read this....

FWSAR

My link

New AOR's :Almost none of that is true, look it up. It's been set back, it's still happening, and the same 2.9B in funding is still there.

Not according to this article, JSS has been around for years, still no firm design nor, contractor....

JSS

My link

Here is a funney article , most of what have been said i've heard from navy guys as well

Navy

My link

That's because DND is questioning whether the F-35 can meet our needs. 2017 - 2020 replacement date. If we haven't signed a contract in about 3 - 4 years, you can worry.

Apparnetly some airfoerce officails are worring now....

F-35

My link

So, what about the projects that have gone through? Over $30B worth in the last 4 years, including the CC-177, CC-130, MILCOTS logistics trucks, the CH-147..etc etc.

All very much needed equipment, and all of it was required yesterday....most of it was pushed through , but you know as well as i do our purcurement sys is broken....and unless there is some policitcal edge to be had most of it will sit in limbo....

So who carries that? And with what?

AN225

My link

Having some big aircraft is not sucking , but it hardly puts us on the prower projection scale you think it does....like i said 4 c-17 might be able to get a company worth of men , supplies and vehs into battle hardly enough to scare any nation into action....but as a G-8 nation we should be able to do more than we can...

Says who?

Says NATO, says i don't remember how many US presidents, Govenors, shit even european coutries....have express thier opinions that Canada's military is under manned, under equiped, and in danger of become obsolete...

The military says we're in no danger of losing that. Sorry, but I don't buy your stories. I refuse to believe that the largest department budget in the government that is constantly growing isn't big enough going forward. You simply seem to think that the sky is falling, while things are getting better.

I don't think the sky is falling i know it is ...I see it every time we go on exericise, and combat troops in a mech out are trucked or bused out because we don't have enough LAV's....that is just the start of the ice burg....the list of examples is huge...

[Smallc]

I don't think your understanding what i'm saying...With ONLY a 20 bil dollar budget and NO outside funding DND can not meet it's purcurment goals....All one has to do is take alook at the small slice DND has left for projects each year. and then cost each of the projects we have currently on the books... It would take decades just to replace the capabilities we currently have...

And again, defence doesn't agree.

Thats Bull crap and you know it, we have not recieved any more new equipment since Lebanon with exception of the C-17's....Our Navy had to rent borrow, and steal....to get the equipment it needed to evac those people to cyprus where they bordered Civiy flights home to Canada....

That's not true, but the C-17 is what would make the difference. There is also the fact that we couldn't go into Lebanon. Nothing would have made a difference there, because we don't have deployed task groups all over the world, just like almost every other country. Also, Lebanon wasn't a DND mission.

C-17 Are stragic aircraft...meaning you don't risk them in a med intensity conflict, by landing them on an unsecured airfield...thats what we have Hercs for....and that option was struck of the list as it would have been to costly in regards to lifes lost...soldiers lives and civilians lives....we also had that rented RO RO ship you've talked about...but it could not get there in time , nor was it cleared for a combat zone as it's crew is civilian....So what did Haiti show us...I'm confused...

But apparently you do waste AN-225? You aren't, again, making any sense.

So what is it that we have to offer....i meqan when you put it into context we are a G-8 nation we are 7 th in spending in NATO....

You do realize that NATO, contains most of the G8 nations, right? You also realize that we don't have the 8th largest economy, but the 9th or 10th...with the 13th largest military budget...right?

So the projects has been changed Now we will recieve rebuilt ones, have have to make do once again...with even less...as there is no vehs to replace the Battle losses in Afghan....

We don't know that there isn't yet. Again with the sky is falling.

As for all the projects, my info comes from official sources, like DND. I suggest you take a look at what they've said regarding those projects. The JSS is going ahead as is the AOPS, but they are waiting for the shipbuilding strategy to be complete. It's been said over and over. FWSAR is to be phased in starting in 2015, the fighters, in 2017. The SCSC will probably be behind it's 2015 date, but we don't know that until the ship building strategy is completed. Again, I'm not sure what you expect, but I and other Canadians think that $21B a year with an escalator is enough. You're going to have to make due. Oh, and last I heard, the tank project had resumed.

This is FWSAR:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Canada+cannot+seem+land+search+rescue+planes/2766200/story.html

Phase I of CFDS, some done, some not:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?cat=00&?cat=00&id=2647

Phase II, about half way down the page:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/first-premier/defstra/rebuild-rebatir-eng.asp

Edited April 8, 2010 by Smallc

[Army Guy]

And again, defence doesn't agree.

All you have to do is the math....Last year there was 3.5 bil out of the Ann Budget for new aquisitions....this year there is alot less...most of those projects i've listed are well over 5 bil....with some as much as 10 or more....so tell me how is it we can amke all this purchases without outside funding.....maybe it's the new math...

That's not true, but the C-17 is what would make the difference. There is also the fact that we couldn't go into Lebanon. Nothing would have made a difference there, because we don't have deployed task groups all over the world, just like almost every other country. Also, Lebanon wasn't a DND mission.

The C-17 would have been able to do what....take more people out of cyprus....what would of made the difference would have been a big honkin ship with limited amphb capabilities....but hey who i'm i ...

lebanon was not a DND mission....who's mission was it....and why is it now the military has a a tasking called NEO, which trains just for these type of occasions....retrieval of civilians from a hostile country...

But apparently you do waste AN-225? You aren't, again, making any sense.

It's going to Afghan it's a secure airfield....besides it's arental, and the russians will fly any where for a price....

You do realize that NATO, contains most of the G8 nations, right? You also realize that we don't have the 8th largest economy, but the 9th or 10th...with the 13th largest military budget...right?

You also know that we have the 2 and largest continent and it comes with a price as we are seeing in the north don't use it loss it....can't defend it loss it....So yes i am aware of what our status is....but how can you sit here and tell me that we can not afford it when in 2009 we pissed away 20 bil in Indiv tax relief, and 75 bil into protecting our banking systems....and thenm bark about the military is spending to much back under the table....Sorry i don't buy it....take a look at the entire budget and tell me right now there is not things we can live without....then tell me there is no money sit down....

As for all the projects, my info comes from official sources, like DND.

Are you saying david is full of shit....i mean he does confer with DND on a daily basises ....he's getting his sources form within DND....I say that because we have been told at the unit level that the CCV and the APV and other veh programs have been canceled....as we where suppose to be one of the units testing them....but that is here say, i understand.