Canada to create Military Bases Abroad

[Smallc]

These won't be on the same scale or even a proportionate scale. The US is spending too much money on keeping a couple hundred thousand troops abroad. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have any.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

These won't be on the same scale or even a proportionate scale. The US is spending too much money on keeping a couple hundred thousand troops abroad. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have any.

Well, somebody has to pay for them....Canada has routinely used American bases abroad because it cannot support the long supply chains by itself.

[Topaz]

I thought I heard Harper say during the election, that Canadians don't like surprises and this is definitely a surprise. I'm sure some of the military have mixed emotions of being sent out of the country to live elsewhere. What happens when we don't have enough personnel to build bases all over the world? This is going to cost millions and billion of dollars, not to mention the new jet, which ever one that gets picked. So we build up the military and cut back on everything else?

[Smallc]

Or not:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Government+says+Canada+looking+overseas+bases/4883596/story.html

[Uncle 3 dogs]

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.

I know if I was in the air force and had a choice between being stationed in Cold Lake or Jamaica the choice would be pretty easy.

[Guest Derek L]

Retracted, I was wrong.

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.

Again, adding to already existing faculties will not be substantial, and like the case is now, these would be forward deployed, Canadian based units.

As for the Caribbean, I still question why? Singapore/Western Australia, Guam, Kuwait and Germany I could see…..The Caribbean or Africa, unless we have forces deployed there, I don’t see a reason for.

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.

It wouldn’t be called HMCS Nanisivik, but CFB/CFS Nanisivik……….CFS Aldergrove in the Fraser Valley has less than 20 members…….Though I don’t doubt they will build something, it won’t be earth shattering.

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.

As for C-17s, I agree 100%, but we’ll have to get a wiggle on, Boeing is going to stop production in the coming years…….As for the CF-35, I can almost guarantee they will, but not with the initial purchase, more likely a small purchase in the late 2020s to replace any aircraft lost through attrition. The same was planned for the Hornet, but the option was never taken.

[Smallc]

It wouldn’t be called HMCS Nanisivik, but CFB/CFS Nanisivik……….

That isn't correct. Naval facilities bear the HMCS designation - Her Majesty's Canadian Station.

As for C-17s, I agree 100%, but we’ll have to get a wiggle on, Boeing is going to stop production in the coming years…….As for the CF-35, I can almost guarantee they will, but not with the initial purchase, more likely a small purchase in the late 2020s to replace any aircraft lost through attrition. The same was planned for the Hornet, but the option was never taken.

The line at Boeing will wind down in a few years, but they've gotten more orders, so we have a bit more time. Hopefully, the government is working quickly on this (if they're actually working on it).

[Guest Derek L]

That isn't correct. Naval facilities bear the HMCS designation - Her Majesty's Canadian Station.

Where's the Pacific and Atlantic fleets based?

[Smallc]

Where's the Pacific and Atlantic fleets based?

Well, I didn't know that, but, small naval stations, like this one, bear the designation HMCS.

There's this to back it up:

http://www.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20070811&t=2&i=1282246&w=460&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=2007-08-11T042842Z_01_N10338526_RTRUKOP_0_PICTURE0

I was just looking into what you said. If you look at, for example, CFB Esquimalt, the actual dockyards are HMCD Esquimalt. Both CFB Halifax and CFB Esquimalt contain more than naval bases. This will be just be a station, hence the HMCS. Far more stations were called HMCS in the past.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Smallc

[Guest Derek L]

Well, I didn't know that, but, small naval stations, like this one, bear the designation HMCS.

There's this to back it up:

http://www.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20070811&t=2&i=1282246&w=460&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=2007-08-11T042842Z_01_N10338526_RTRUKOP_0_PICTURE0

The Ball-cap is wrong.......Aldergrove, which I mentioned above (Twenty people), use to be HMCS Aldergrove, then after unification became CFS Aldergrove and is now part of CFB Esquimalt.

[Guest Derek L]

Well, I didn't know that, but, small naval stations, like this one, bear the designation HMCS.

There's this to back it up:

http://www.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20070811&t=2&i=1282246&w=460&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=2007-08-11T042842Z_01_N10338526_RTRUKOP_0_PICTURE0

I was just looking into what you said. If you look at, for example, CFB Esquimalt, the actual dockyards are HMCD Esquimalt. Both CFB Halifax and CFB Esquimalt contain more than naval bases. This will be just be a station, hence the HMCS. Far more stations were called HMCS in the past.

Dockyard & Naden are facilities on CFB Esquimalt.

[Smallc]

The Ball-cap is wrong.......Aldergrove, which I mentioned above (Twenty people), use to be HMCS Aldergrove, then after unification became CFS Aldergrove and is now part of CFB Esquimalt.

All of the reserve stations have HMCS as part of their name. Maybe it's wrong, I was just going by the releases at the time of the announcement.

[Guest Derek L]

All of the reserve stations have HMCS as part of their name. Maybe it's wrong, I was just going by the releases at the time of the announcement.

No, Naval reserve divisons have the HMCS prefix.......for example, the reserves in Victoria are part of HMCS Malahat, but HMCS Malahat falls under the command of MARPAC, with is based at CFB Esquimalt.......................It's just a nitpick, and I'll agree that it can be confusing, but you have Paul Hellyer to thank

[Smallc]

Lear something new every day.

[Moonlight Graham]

Or not:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Government+says+Canada+looking+overseas+bases/4883596/story.html

Interesting. Here's what the original CBC article stated:

There are no plans to set up permanent bases around the world, but the planning happens to ensure Canada has options in case the military needs to deploy from another country, a government source said.

Here's what that gazette article states, a quote from MacKay or Jay Paxton (whoever that is):

"Prudent planning is necessary to ensure that future expeditionary operations are fully supported, however this government and the Canadian Forces have no intention of creating permanent large bases in overseas locations."

So both articles say 'no permanent bases', but suggest...something. Whatever, it could still mean Canada rents out a hanger or 2 at an airfield in these countries. maybe that doesn't qualify as 'large permanent bases'.

If i had to choose, i'd go with the Le Devour article over the CPC gov on this one.

[Smallc]

Interesting. Here's what the original CBC article stated:

They must have added that later. It wasn't there at the beginning.

[Guest Derek L]

Interesting. Here's what the original CBC article stated:

Here's what that gazette article states, a quote from MacKay or Jay Paxton (whoever that is):

So both articles say 'no permanent bases', but suggest...something. Whatever, it could still mean Canada rents out a hanger or 2 at an airfield in these countries. maybe that doesn't qualify as 'large permanent bases'.

If i had to choose, i'd go with the Le Devour article over the CPC gov on this one.

What headlines will sell more papers?

Military to open bases in foreign countries

Or

Military to lease warehouse & fuel storage space in foreign countries

[Moonlight Graham]

Or not:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Government+says+Canada+looking+overseas+bases/4883596/story.html

Interesting. Here's what the original CBC article stated:

There are no plans to set up permanent bases around the world, but the planning happens to ensure Canada has options in case the military needs to deploy from another country, a government source said.

Here's what that gazette article states, a quote from MacKay or Jay Paxton (whoever that is):

"Prudent planning is necessary to ensure that future expeditionary operations are fully supported, however this government and the Canadian Forces have no intention of creating permanent large bases in overseas locations."

So both articles say 'no permanent bases', but suggest...something. Whatever, it could still mean Canada rents out a hanger or 2 at an airfield in these countries. maybe that doesn't qualify as 'large permanent bases'.

If i had to choose, i'd go with the Le Devour article over the CPC gov on this one.

[Dave_ON]

Hasn't the United States been criticized for having military bases abroad?

Aren't you always criticizing others on this board for comparing Canada to the US?

[Topaz]

Here's what was said yesterday by the NDP and the Liberals on this topic. Also, it has more info. on the bases and I don't understand McKay saying the F-35 being delivered 2016 when Lockheed says they can't make the date Canada wants. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/06/02/pol-military-bases.html

[Smallc]

Lockheed said they wouldn't be operational until then. That probably means that the actual delivery has slipped by a year or two. For example, the C-17 fleet still has not reached full operational status.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Smallc

[Guest Derek L]

Here's what was said yesterday by the NDP and the Liberals on this topic. Also, it has more info. on the bases and I don't understand McKay saying the F-35 being delivered 2016 when Lockheed says they can't make the date Canada wants. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/06/02/pol-military-bases.html

I've yet seen anything to suggest we would recieve one until ~2017......even then, they won't be fully operational until the early ~2020s.

[Guest Derek L]

Lockheed said they wouldn't be operational until then. That probably means that the actual delivery has slipped by a year or two. For example, the C-17 fleet still has not reached full operational status.

The first production F-35A & F-35C are already in USAF & USN service in Flight Test Squadrons......

[Smallc]

The first production F-35A & F-35C are already in USAF & USN service in Flight Test Squadrons......

That may be, but by all indications I've seen, the timeline has slipped a bit. We were supposed to receive the first ones in 2016, but that might now be 2017 or 2018. That would explain the 2020 operational date.

I like the F-35, but still, I wonder how the timeline would be if we have bought the Super Hornet or Typhoon (I didn't like that plane before, but I really find it interesting) instead. The Typhoon is probably one of the best planes in existence.

[Guest Derek L]

That may be, but by all indications I've seen, the timeline has slipped a bit. We were supposed to receive the first ones in 2016, but that might now be 2017 or 2018. That would explain the 2020 operational date.

I like the F-35, but still, I wonder how the timeline would be if we have bought the Super Hornet or Typhoon (I didn't like that plane before, but I really find it interesting) instead. The Typhoon is probably one of the best planes in existence.

The planned purchase of the CF-35 is/was suppose to be between 2015-2017, with initial delivery being 2017, with squadron level service starting around 2020……..much like the Sea Thing replacement, was chosen years ago, we’ve started paying for it but won’t get them in fully operational service for a few years.

As for the Super Hornet, we should have purchased/leased 24-36 of them ten years ago in lieu of the expensive Hornet upgrade, which would allowed us some wiggle room with retiring the legacy fleet later this decade as the F-35 comes into service……There’s nothing wrong with the Super Hornet, it’s one of the few modern fighter aircraft to come in under budget and had a seamless integration into USN squadron service, but a large block purchase today would see it becoming obsolete only a few years after it’s fully in squadron service.

The Typhoon does boast some positive aspects but its still has not lived up to all the brochures. Like the Rafale still requiring Super Etendards to designate ground targets, the Typhoon still requires another aircraft, such as the Tornado over Libya. The Rhino works as advertised, right out of the box.