Smallc Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 A report in Montreal newspaper Le Devoir said the Canadian Forces is negotiating to set up bases under a program known as the Operational Support Hubs Network. They've reportedly already completed negotiations with Germany and Jamaica, and are in talks with Kuwait, Senegal, Kenya or Tanzania, Singapore and South Korea. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/06/02/pol-military-bases.html I think it's a great idea. Our assets are often the far from hot spots when trouble strikes. This will definitely mean, it seems, a large DND budget. It will pretty much have to mean that. This will be a huge logistics challenge, and in order to have fighter jets and transports positions abroad we'll need more than 48 fighters in combat squadrons, 17 CC-130js and 4 CC-177s. I expected Canada to order more C-17s, but I wasn't expecting something that seems to signal an increase in the number of fighter jets and possible tactical transports. Quote
bjre Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 More tax dollars for US weapon makers. Quote "The more laws, the less freedom" -- bjre "There are so many laws that nearly everybody breaks some, even when you just stay at home do nothing, the only question left is how thugs can use laws to attack you" -- bjre "If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson
Smallc Posted June 2, 2011 Author Report Posted June 2, 2011 (edited) I should ad that the original article talks about most of these bases simply being agreements for us to use a location when we need it, but some of these (probably those in Germany and Jamaica for sure and Kuwait for now) will be manned at all times, and so that will probably mean some aircraft on deployment at all times, whether they be fighters or transports. Edited June 2, 2011 by Smallc Quote
Dave_ON Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 I should ad that the original article talks about most of these bases simply being agreements for us to use a location when we need it, but some of these (probably those in Germany and Jamaica for sure and Kuwait for now) will be manned at all times, and so that will probably mean some aircraft on deployment at all times, whether they be fighters or transports. As much as I support beefing up our military domestically, I always wonder with taxes being cut willy nilly, how will we pay for all of this increased spending? Mr. Harper appears to cut taxes like a conservative and spend like a drunken liberal. Quote Follow the man who seeks the truth; run from the man who has found it. -Vaclav Haval-
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 More tax dollars for US weapon makers. ...easy solution for that...make your own. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Dave_ON Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 ...easy solution for that...make your own. He's in China, presumably they do... we all know that there's no mark of quality like "made in China" Quote Follow the man who seeks the truth; run from the man who has found it. -Vaclav Haval-
Shady Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 More tax dollars for US weapon makers. And Canadian weapons makers. Quote
Smallc Posted June 2, 2011 Author Report Posted June 2, 2011 As much as I support beefing up our military domestically, I always wonder with taxes being cut willy nilly, how will we pay for all of this increased spending? Mr. Harper appears to cut taxes like a conservative and spend like a drunken liberal. Yeah, that could be a problem. Hopefully, we don't end up in a permanent deficit. Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 Well, this is interesting to say the least. Much more detail is needed as the article is pretty bare. If anything, sounds expensive. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Battletoads Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 Why does a nation of 33 million need to piss away billions on military bases in far off lands? We don't even have our own country covered in terms of bases... Quote "You can lead a Conservative to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
Guest Derek L Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 These bases will likely be something along the lines of camp “Mirage” or Diego Garcia for the States….Small detachments of forward deployed logistics personal, both military and civilian handling the material required already for deployed personal. Probably be nothing more then Sea Containers full of supplies with small security detachments and the above mentioned logistics personal. No big deal, in all likelihood, it will probably be cheaper leasing land to store equipment & material overseas then deploying it at great expense with chartered Ukrainian & Russian aircraft when it’s needed. Quote
Smallc Posted June 2, 2011 Author Report Posted June 2, 2011 Why does a nation of 33 million need to piss away billions on military bases in far off lands? We don't even have our own country covered in terms of bases... We seem to have no trouble responding here, whether it's for flooding in Manitoba and Quebec, or forest fires in Saskatchewan. It took us a few days to get going in Libya though, not because we lacked equipment, but because there wasn't equipment already in place and the logistics chain had to be devised from scratch. The same can be seen with the parts shortages for Griffon helicopters in Haiti. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 Why does a nation of 33 million need to piss away billions on military bases in far off lands? We don't even have our own country covered in terms of bases... If not for politics, we could manage with less bases within Canada. Quote
Smallc Posted June 2, 2011 Author Report Posted June 2, 2011 Probably be nothing more then Sea Containers full of supplies with small security detachments and the above mentioned logistics personal. Mostly, but the base in Germany may be more, and the base in Jamaica is almsot guaranteed to be. The basei n Kuwait will also be quite busy till at least 2014. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 Mostly, but the base in Germany may be more, and the base in Jamaica is almsot guaranteed to be. The basei n Kuwait will also be quite busy till at least 2014. Pure speculation on my part, but in Germany, it could something as simple as deploying medical staff into American military hospitals. Jamaica would be useful for Hurricane season in the gulf, again, this could be done with mostly Sea Bins and Kuwait would be a pit stop for forces still deployed within Afghanistan. Quote
Battletoads Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 We seem to have no trouble responding here, whether it's for flooding in Manitoba and Quebec, or forest fires in Saskatchewan. It took us a few days to get going in Libya though, not because we lacked equipment, but because there wasn't equipment already in place and the logistics chain had to be devised from scratch. The same can be seen with the parts shortages for Griffon helicopters in Haiti. I'm talking about the north. Quote "You can lead a Conservative to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
Smallc Posted June 2, 2011 Author Report Posted June 2, 2011 (edited) I'm talking about the north. The north is covered by forward deployed CF-18s, as well as Twin Otters. There are also regular patrols by Air Command CP-140s and Transport Canada's Dash 7. It isn't much, but then, there aren't many people there either. Oh yeah, and Alert and Eureka. Edited June 2, 2011 by Smallc Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 I'm talking about the north. There's no lack of bases in the North, just deployments of personal. If any expansion was to be needed, it could be done at already existing sites. Quote
Smallc Posted June 2, 2011 Author Report Posted June 2, 2011 (edited) Pure speculation on my part, but in Germany, it could something as simple as deploying medical staff into American military hospitals. I'm not sure that's what it will be. The negotiations were said to be with Germany, not the US, and the purpose is for support during forward deployments to allow rapid deployments. Jamaica would be useful for Hurricane season in the gulf, again, this could be done with mostly Sea Bins and Kuwait would be a pit stop for forces still deployed within Afghanistan. I think Canada may be positioning itself to take a greater roll in the Caribbean. Edited June 2, 2011 by Smallc Quote
Smallc Posted June 2, 2011 Author Report Posted June 2, 2011 (edited) The deep water port is also being built in the north, and there are usually some coast guard assets there for at least 9 months a year. The AOPS are also (eventually) on the way. Edited June 2, 2011 by Smallc Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 I'm not sure that's what it will be. The negotiations were said to be with Germany, not the US, and the purpose is for support during forward deployments to allow rapid deployments. I think Canada may be positioning itself to take a greater roll in the Caribbean. Sure, the bases are on German soil, so host nation support is a must. As for the Caribbean, other than disaster response, I don't see why....War on drugs or Venezuela? As for the Arctic “Base”, that could be as simple as a jetty, a couple of warehouses and fuel storage……DND and the Coast Guard won’t permently base personal there. Quote
Smallc Posted June 2, 2011 Author Report Posted June 2, 2011 (edited) Sure, the bases are on German soil, so host nation support is a must. Retracted, I was wrong. As for the Caribbean, other than disaster response, I don't see why....War on drugs or Venezuela? Harper seems to want to play a bigger roll there. Drugs may be part of it, but I think it will have more to do with development, disaster response, and mutual defence. As for the Arctic “Base”, that could be as simple as a jetty, a couple of warehouses and fuel storage……DND and the Coast Guard won’t permently base personal there. That's a possibility, but it's doubtful, since it will be named HMCS Nanasivik. That implies that for at least the part of the year that the CCG and the CF will be operating in the arctic, the base will be manned. Edited June 2, 2011 by Smallc Quote
Smallc Posted June 2, 2011 Author Report Posted June 2, 2011 (edited) I could be wrong, but I can see this leading to the purchase of at the very least, 1 - 3 more C-17s. We're going to need to haul all of this stuff for international missions, and we don't have the capacity to do mroe than two international things at once right now because of a lack of strategic lift. Australia has ordered a 5th C-17, and the UK has ordered a 7th and is preparing to order an 8th. Canadian bureaucrats were apparently prepping the paperwork for an order, were the government to decide to place one. There is also speculation by some that Canada will order more than 65 F-35s. Edited June 2, 2011 by Smallc Quote
Guest American Woman Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 Canada to create Military Bases Abroad Hasn't the United States been criticized for having military bases abroad? Quote
RNG Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 Hasn't the United States been criticized for having military bases abroad? Endlessly on an America political forum I frequent. And both from the Dems and the Reps, although more the Dem side. That $1.5T deficit really hurts. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
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.