Canadian Military or Foreign Aid

[PIK]

QWith that huge dock yeard closing in england , to bad a deal could not have been made to keep it going, building our ships and save money at the same time.

[Topaz]

You guys talk about the hardware of the military what about what the troops want and need like BOOTS. Accord to this article they are getting cheap footwear, probably made in China and it falls apart way too soon which is costly them and taxpayers. http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/the-candian-forces-still-cant-buy-combat-boots

[carepov]

OK...then checking your logic, it would follow that you do not support "sharing" in such "stupid spending". That would mean more low tech warfighting, less precision for munitions, no GPS system, no lift fan, tilt rotor, or stealth aircraft, no digital data links, no satellite recon imaging or signals intel, no AWACS, no laser rangefinders for tanks, no nuclear subs to launch cruise missiles that also wouldn't exist, etc. , etc. Gosh, think of all the money that would be saved.

No...none of that stupid expensive stuff...just good 'ol blood and guts trench warfare, with breaks for tea, of course. Much more civilized.

No, that is not at all what I am saying.

For both Canada and the US, I am saying no more $500 hammers. A bigger issue for the US is: no more Vietnam/Iraq type quagmires.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, that is not at all what I am saying.

For both Canada and the US, I am saying no more $500 hammers. A bigger issue for the US is: no more Vietnam/Iraq type quagmires.

This is not about the U.S.....it is about Canada and one of the lowest military spending levels as a percentage of GDP in NATO. Yet you still seem to advocate for "sharing" the resources of other nations that spend much more.

Edited November 26, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[carepov]

This is not about the U.S.....it is about Canada and one of the lowest military spending levels as a percentage of GDP in NATO. Yet you still seem to advocate for "sharing" the resources of other nations that spend much more.

Yes, NATO military leaders are saying the same thing: reduce overlapping capabilities to increase efficiency.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, NATO military leaders are saying the same thing: reduce overlapping capabilities to increase efficiency.

U.S. and NATO resources/commands are not the same thing. Canada is more dependent on a collective defense than is the U.S., and spending levels should reflect and support this dependency.

[Bonam]

If all your friends jumped off a bridge then would you too?

[Guest Derek L]

QWith that huge dock yeard closing in england , to bad a deal could not have been made to keep it going, building our ships and save money at the same time.

Pompey and save money don't equate......

[Guest Derek L]

No, that is not at all what I am saying.

For both Canada and the US, I am saying no more $500 hammers.

Professional carpenters & contractors use $500 Stiletto hammers, for using cheaper and inferior hammers makes their job harder and less cost effective in the long run………

So you want Canada to purchase the cheapo fibreglass hammer from Walmart, and when this proves insufficient, just borrow our friends proper hammers……

[Guest Derek L]

Yes, NATO military leaders are saying the same thing: reduce overlapping capabilities to increase efficiency.

To carry on with your hammer reference, NATO has never stated it’s members shouldn’t own hammers, pry bars, tape measures and squares…..quite the opposite, it’s urging it’s newer members to purchase newer basic hand tools to ensure they’re interoperable with other NATO members, well also encouraging it’s members to ensure their force structures are deployable…….The overlapping capabilities referenced are those European members (France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland etc) that have large, heavily mechanized armies that they both can’t deploy and support outside of their borders……..Hence the defence expenditures of many NATO members over the last couple of decades adding new capabilities to their militaries like strategic air & sealift, amphibious warfare vessels and expeditionary naval forces.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Derek L

[carepov]

Professional carpenters & contractors use $500 Stiletto hammers, for using cheaper and inferior hammers makes their job harder and less cost effective in the long run………

So you want Canada to purchase the cheapo fibreglass hammer from Walmart, and when this proves insufficient, just borrow our friends proper hammers……

I love it. I would have never have thought that actual hammers could cost $500. Thanks Derek.

Anyways, I never did say to get the cheapest hammers - it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Maybe you do get the Stiletto hammers but just shop around to get the best deal:

http://www.amazon.ca/Stiletto-TB15MC-15-Ounce-Titanium-Milled-Face/dp/B00079R1YM

[Guest Derek L]

I love it. I would have never have thought that actual hammers could cost $500. Thanks Derek.

Anyways, I never did say to get the cheapest hammers - it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Maybe you do get the Stiletto hammers but just shop around to get the best deal:

http://www.amazon.ca/Stiletto-TB15MC-15-Ounce-Titanium-Milled-Face/dp/B00079R1YM

No Amazon.com for 5th gen aircraft or modern warships........So are you consigned yet with the requirement?

[bush_cheney2004]

I love it. I would have never have thought that actual hammers could cost $500. Thanks Derek.

Anyways, I never did say to get the cheapest hammers - it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Maybe you do get the Stiletto hammers but just shop around to get the best deal:

http://www.amazon.ca/Stiletto-TB15MC-15-Ounce-Titanium-Milled-Face/dp/B00079R1YM

That hammer is a lot cheaper in the U.S. Canada always pays more !

http://www.amazon.com/Stiletto-TB15MC-15-Ounce-Titanium-Milled-Face/dp/B00079R1YM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1385532361&sr=8-1&keywords=Stiletto+TB15MC

[Wilber]

Never had a $500 hammer but good tools aren't cheap and cheap tools will let you down when you need them most.

[carepov]

No Amazon.com for 5th gen aircraft or modern warships........So are you consigned yet with the requirement?

Canada doesn't need 5th gen aircraft.

Modern arctic ships are way cheaper on amazon.no and amazon.dk

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/shipbuilding-contract-holds-250m-mystery-1.1300816

Edited November 27, 2013 by carepov

[Smallc]

Canada doesn't need 5th gen aircraft.

Says who? You?

[Guest Derek L]

Canada doesn't need 5th gen aircraft.

Why? Is that because you’d have us just “borrow” from other folks, like the Danes, Dutch and Australians etc?

Modern arctic ships are way cheaper on amazon.no and amazon.dk

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...stery-1.1300816

Danes and Norwegians don’t vote or pay taxes in Canada.

[carepov]

Why? Is that because you’d have us just “borrow” from other folks, like the Danes, Dutch and Australians etc?

To do what?

Danes and Norwegians don’t vote or pay taxes in Canada.

So you are in favour of wasteful spending in order to buy votes?

[Guest Derek L]

To do what?

The same tasks our current Hornets, the aircraft that they will replace, do.

So you are in favour of wasteful spending in order to buy votes?

Yes and no…….I’d prefer less expensive, off the shelf purchases when possible, but understand both political realities and the strategic impact to our nation of the death of domestic shipbuilding and repair.

[Bonam]

Not to mention that spending $1 billion in Canada is less expensive (for the Canadian government) than spending $500 million elsewhere. Money spent in Canada comes right back to the government as taxes, money spent in other countries does not.

[carepov]

Not to mention that spending $1 billion in Canada is less expensive (for the Canadian government) than spending $500 million elsewhere. Money spent in Canada comes right back to the government as taxes, money spent in other countries does not.

It depends. In the case of the ships, it looks more like we are spending $1 billion instead of $200 million. If we spent $200 million elsewhere, we could then spend the $800 million on made in Canada projects that will have actual bennefits (for example infrastructure).

[Guest Derek L]

It depends. In the case of the ships, it looks more like we are spending $1 billion instead of $200 million. If we spent $200 million elsewhere, we could then spend the $800 million on made in Canada projects that will have actual bennefits (for example infrastructure).

You don’t feel having the ability to refurbish/repair your own warships is beneficial? Regardless, you’re offside on this one, fore the Liberals and NDP are just as unlikely to outsource the replacements for the Navy and Coast Guard.

[carepov]

You don’t feel having the ability to refurbish/repair your own warships is beneficial? Regardless, you’re offside on this one, fore the Liberals and NDP are just as unlikely to outsource the replacements for the Navy and Coast Guard.

Not beneficial enough for the cost.

You are probably right about no party having the sense to consider outsourcing shipbuilding. Why can we do it so easily for other procurements like helicopters? This whole thing stinks of waste.

[Guest Derek L]

Not beneficial enough for the cost.

Says who? You?

Sacrificing the ability to repair or modify your own warships domestically is asinine…….regardless, the numbers you/CBC contrast between planned Canadian built and European built vessels is disingenuous for the reasons I outlined in the shipbuilding thread to you. European yards & workforces are already heavily subsidised and this doesn’t appear in build costs, to say nothing of a requirement, regardless of who built the ship, to bring it to Canadian standards…..something as simple as redesigning a European design to accept North American voltages can drive up design and build costs significantly and will have follow on effects such as the ships generators, power plant etc…

You are probably right about no party having the sense to consider outsourcing shipbuilding. Why can we do it so easily for other procurements like helicopters? This whole thing stinks of waste.

Ships and aircraft (Or tanks, or small arms, or ammunition etc etc) are apples and oranges.....

Edited November 28, 2013 by Derek L

[carepov]

Derek, I am interested in how you rate the value for our taxpayer dollar for the current procurement of F35s (~$175 milion each flyaway) and new ships (~$1 billion each)

1. Great deals! We are exceeding expectations and really stretching our dollars.

2. Satisfied. We are getting fair value.

3. Dubious/reluctantly accepting. Military equipment is always expensive and there is always some waste.

4. Irate. We are pissing away taxpayer money. We should reconsider our needs/wants and look for better options.

For both programs, I'm a 4. I'm assuming that you are 2., right?

Now, everything has a price. What is yours? Hypothetically, how much more expensive would these procurements need to be before you reached level 4.? 25% more expensive? double? triple?