Harper's Tough Talk on Defense and Russia is just empty words

[Bob Macadoo]

Not really……..there are clearly viable solutions presented by industry……the failings stem from upper management selecting the wrong cars, granted this is often corrupted by the elected government and civil servants determining the wrong cars are produced in a adventitious ridings/regions found within Canada.

Are the wrong cars selected simply because of location selection? GM does this repeatedly (eg. Yukon, Camaro, etc.) but they continue on in profitability. Are you saying it is due to Board (ie gov't) interference?

Even GM/Ford have fixed their Supply Chain problems in 50 years....what's wrong here?

[Derek 2.0]

Are the wrong cars selected simply because of location selection?

In many cases yes, a proven piece of military equipment could be procured from the United States or Germany for example, but a given Government will require said piece of equipment is procured domestically……..cost and effectiveness be damned!! In other cases, when no domestic product exists, the Government will determine the winner by which foreign producer will “invest” the most in Canadian largess via "industrial off-sets".

[Bob Macadoo]

In many cases yes, a proven piece of military equipment could be procured from the United States or Germany for example, but a given Government will require said piece of equipment is procured domestically……..cost and effectiveness be damned!! In other cases, when no domestic product exists, the Government will determine the winner by which foreign producer will “invest” the most in Canadian largess via "industrial off-sets".

You mean like pork for Irving?

[Derek 2.0]

You mean like pork for Irving?

Better put, pork for Canadian shipbuilders as a whole.........Irving-Davie-Seaspan, all the same.

[eyeball]

I think it's a safe bet that the 60% of Canadians who keep voting for more of this crap must include the majority of the clueless Canadians that many keep referring to in this thread.

[Argus]

There hasn't?

No. Where's those icebreakers?

You purchase a car for 25k and I purchase a car for 25k………your car comes fully loaded, my car is missing a tire and a door……..You advocate that if I had more money, I could be trusted with purchasing a car similar to yours.

Again, you haven't actually demonstrated that either Canada or Australia makes better use of their money. I, on the other hand, have demonstrated that Australia, a not-very-warlike nation, can pay 1.6% of their GDP for the military while Canada has cut its from 1.4 to 1%.

An analysis by retired Lt.-Col Brian MacDonald of the Conference of Defence Associations (CDA) has found military spending as a percentage of gross domestic product trending toward its lowest level since 1997.

MacDonald stated that the declining ratio of defence spending to GDP — from a high of 1.4 per cent in 2009-10 to an estimated 1.08 per cent by 2015 — is “more consistent to a return to ‘the Decade of Darkness’ than to the ‘Brave New World’ promised” by the federal Conservatives.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/20/harper-governments-defence-spending-cuts-raise-spectre-of-another-decade-of-darkness/

Edited September 7, 2014 by Argus

[Derek 2.0]

No. Where's those icebreakers?

As demonstrated in the previous article, starting production next fall.

[Derek 2.0]

Again, you haven't actually demonstrated that either Canada or Australia makes better use of their money. I, on the other hand, have demonstrated that Australia, a not-very-warlike nation, can pay 1.6% of their GDP for the military while Canada has cut its from 1.4 to 1%.

Nor have you explained why percent of GDP is a viable and all encompassing measure of a nations armed forces....

To contrast Canada and Australia, one need only look at their contributions to the war in Afghanistan and Iraq (for the Aussies), coupled with a precursory glance at each nations OrBats.

[Smallc]

Australia now spends about 7B more a year than we do.

[Derek 2.0]

Australia now spends about 7B more a year than we do.

Yes, their increase is reflected by recent equipment purchases, and their expenditures will increase as they order further big ticketed items over the next few years……of course this is also true of Canada when we do the like.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[Argus]

As demonstrated in the previous article, starting production next fall.

Uh, yeah, okay. I guess you're pretty easily satisfied.

What happened to those icebreakers that Canada was going to build?” The question from an American colleague was accompanied by a sly wink.

In December, 2005, then opposition leader Stephen Harper promised three new heavy icebreakers to defend Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic. One month later, he reaffirmed the promise during his first press conference as prime minister. Eight years later, nothing has come of the plan – and foreign experts are shaking their heads at Mr. Harper’s all-talk, no-action approach to Arctic policy.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-north/why-canadas-search-for-an-icebreaker-is-an-arctic-embarrassment/article16425755/#dashboard/follows/

[Argus]

Nor have you explained why percent of GDP is a viable and all encompassing measure of a nations armed forces....

Yes, actually, I have. It's used as a measure of a country's size and wealth.

To contrast Canada and Australia, one need only look at their contributions to the war in Afghanistan and Iraq (for the Aussies), coupled with a precursory glance at each nations OrBats.

Afghanistan was Chretien's contribution. What's Harper done?

When it comes to defence spending, the old Stephen Harper wouldn’t recognize the new one. The new one looks at lot more like Jean Chrétien

Adjusted for inflation, spending is now lower than in 2007, according to David Perry, senior security and defence analyst with the CDA Institute. In other words, it is essentially back to Liberal levels. Compared to the size of the Canadian economy, it’s less than it was in Mr. Chrétien’s tenure, at about 1 per cent of GDP.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/harper-no-big-defence-spender-and-hes-learned-thats-ok/article20464626/#dashboard/follows/

Edited September 8, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

Yes, their increase is reflected by recent equipment purchases, and their expenditures will increase as they order further big ticketed items over the next few years……of course this is also true of Canada when we do the like.

You mean if, right? Harper has pushed back almost all major expenditures past the next election. So you have to attach an "if" to all of them.

[cybercoma]

Uh, yeah, okay. I guess you're pretty easily satisfied.

What happened to those icebreakers that Canada was going to build?” The question from an American colleague was accompanied by a sly wink.

In December, 2005, then opposition leader Stephen Harper promised three new heavy icebreakers to defend Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic. One month later, he reaffirmed the promise during his first press conference as prime minister. Eight years later, nothing has come of the plan – and foreign experts are shaking their heads at Mr. Harper’s all-talk, no-action approach to Arctic policy.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-north/why-canadas-search-for-an-icebreaker-is-an-arctic-embarrassment/article16425755/#dashboard/follows/

Hey, man. He's going to deliver. Next fall. Only a decade after the promise and many years after winning a majority government.

Edited September 8, 2014 by cybercoma

[Argus]

Hey, man. He's going to deliver. Next fall. Only a decade after the promise and many years after winning a majority government.

Not even. He promised three heavy icebreakers back in 2005. He might start building one next year, but the others are off the table. See me twirl my finger around in the air excitedly.

[Smallc]

The 3 large ones were replaced by 6 - 8 small ones...for some reason.

[Derek 2.0]

Uh, yeah, okay. I guess you're pretty easily satisfied.

Sure………I also understand the lead time associated with procurement.

[Argus]

The 3 large ones were replaced by 6 - 8 small ones...for some reason.

The slushbreakers? Incompetence, perhaps. From what I've read the slushbreakers are not very complicated vessels, not really much better than civilian ships, except that they're enormously more expensive for no reason anyone has been able to explain. No doubt the organizations which wind up building them will make huge profits.

"The AOPS is not a complicated vessel," says the report. "It has a relatively low ice class, a well tried AC-AC diesel electric propulsion system and fairly pedantic accommodation and on-board services and equipment.… It is not fitted with sophisticated weaponry and even its naval situation room outfitting is limited and not intended to be functional on a year-round basis."

The consultants' report compares the Arctic patrol ships with an Alaskan research ship, the Sikuliaq, recently designed and built in Wisconsin for the U.S. National Science Foundation for $200 million. The report says the Sikuliaq, "though smaller than the AOPS vessels ... is ice-capable and has more outfitting and systems than the AOPS due to its research capabilities. The ship is being built to high commercial standards using advanced outfitting techniques.… The entire cost of designing and constructing the Alaska Vessel is less than the cost of just the Contract Definition phase of the AOPS."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-was-warned-about-arctic-patrol-ships-high-price-1.1859387

Edited September 8, 2014 by Argus

[Derek 2.0]

Yes, actually, I have. It's used as a measure of a country's size and wealth.

No you haven’t…...why is it used as a reflection on the inherent capability of a nation’s military? North Korea spends a far greater percent of their GDP (likewise the Soviets during the cold war) on their military than the United States……….does that mean the North Koreans have a more effective military?

Afghanistan was Chretien's contribution. What's Harper done?

I fail to see what this has to do with the quoted passage.

[Derek 2.0]

You mean if, right? Harper has pushed back almost all major expenditures past the next election. So you have to attach an "if" to all of them.

Are you suggesting that the transformation of the shipyards on each coast won’t result in new ships?

[Derek 2.0]

Hey, man. He's going to deliver. Next fall. Only a decade after the promise and many years after winning a majority government.

How would the NDP have sped up procurement?

[Argus]

No you haven’t…...why is it used as a reflection on the inherent capability of a nation’s military?

It's not. It's used as a measure of the capability of a country to pay for its military.

I fail to see what this has to do with the quoted passage.

We're discussing Stephen Harper's commitment to the military, or lack thereof, are we not?

[Argus]

Are you suggesting that the transformation of the shipyards on each coast won’t result in new ships?

But how many and when? Nobody really knows what changes might be made. No one even knows how many of the slushbreakers we're going to wind up getting as costs continue to spiral upward.

[Derek 2.0]

The 3 large ones were replaced by 6 - 8 small ones...for some reason.

6-8 "small ones" guarantees a minimum of two ships constantly operational, versus one of the three “large ones” in constant operation.

[Derek 2.0]

It's not. It's used as a measure of the capability of a country to pay for its military.

So the North Koreans have the greatest capability to pay for their military?

We're discussing Stephen Harper's commitment to the military, or lack thereof, are we not?

Not in the quoted passage.