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

Derek 2.0 · September 8, 2014

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.

Indeed..........it appears very expensive to build ships in a country without a viable shipbuilding industry..........perhaps they should outsource them.

Argus · September 8, 2014

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

You're forgetting they have minimal ability to cut through ice. They are NOT a substitute for three large ones.

Argus · September 8, 2014

Indeed..........it appears very expensive to build ships in a country without a viable shipbuilding industry..........perhaps they should outsource them.

I would have. And aside from shipbuilders nobody in the country would have complained if we could have gotten them for half or even one third the cost.

Derek 2.0 · September 8, 2014

You're forgetting they have minimal ability to cut through ice. They are NOT a substitute for three large ones.

That’s not their intent, nor the purview of the Navy.

Derek 2.0 · September 8, 2014

I would have. And aside from shipbuilders nobody in the country would have complained if we could have gotten them for half or even one third the cost.

Yet, neither the Liberals or NDP would.........nor any past, postwar, PC or Liberal Governments...........And of course, allowing the shipbuilding industry to wither, would drastically reduce our ability to conduct major repairs and upgrades, putting our armed forces at a strategic disadvantage.

Argus · September 8, 2014

Yet, neither the Liberals or NDP would.........nor any past, postwar, PC or Liberal Governments...........And of course, allowing the shipbuilding industry to wither, would drastically reduce our ability to conduct major repairs and upgrades, putting our armed forces at a strategic disadvantage.

The problem is our shipbuilders wither anyway. Every thirty or forty years we buy new ships. That's about it. I understand the initiative was a way to stop that, to build ships regularly, so we wouldn't have long periods of dormancy then a sudden big bulge in spending and building. I completely agree with that strategy, but I have NO faith this or whatever government which follows will live up to it. When it comes time to build another frigate for a billion or two, or put that money into something else they'll decide to put it into something else. Remember, we were supposed to get a third batch of frigates last time around. It got cancelled.

I'm going to predict right now that after these ships are built we won't build another for thirty years.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Argus

Derek 2.0 · September 9, 2014

The problem is our shipbuilders wither anyway. Every thirty or forty years we buy new ships. That's about it. I understand the initiative was a way to stop that, to build ships regularly, so we wouldn't have long periods of dormancy then a sudden big bulge in spending and building. I completely agree with that strategy, but I have NO faith this or whatever government which follows will live up to it. When it comes time to build another frigate for a billion or two, or put that money into something else they'll decide to put it into something else.

Commercial shipbuilding is a dying industry in the “West” (sans South Korea and Japan), yet the United States, United Kingdom, the French, Dutch etc all still retain a domestic naval shipbuilding industry, all paying inflated prices in exchange for the strategic advantage of being able to repair and modify their own ships………….

What the National Shipbuilding strategy is intended to do, is keep two yards viable, instead of the pass practice of allowing various yards across Canada, typically in an adventitious political riding or province to “win” the contract……This is why for example 3 of our 12 Halifax Frigates were built in Quebec (and not by Irving in Nova Scotia), oddly enough 3 ships of the class have a slight difference in material condition……

Now I have no contention over the prices being inflated, but once the media compares apples to oranges between a ship built here and in Europe they are commuting a falsehood, in that much of the European industries are heavily subsidised, and their costs don’t show up as defense expenditures…..this of course is not true with ourselves……….likewise a European vessel will be the actual cost of procurement, where as our price will also include simulators and various other training aides etc….

Now the hope going forward with down selecting to two shipyards, one on each coast, the GoC will be able to continuously keep these yards in continual work with contracts for the navy/DFO/CCG, not only the currently planned purchases, but eventual replacements for currently “young” vessels, the mid-life overhauls of the ships to be built, and then their replacements etc………continuous, cyclic work to maintain a skill set, preventing the previous feast or famine approach.

Argus · September 9, 2014

Matthew Fisher makes some valid points in his column today on the Harper government's muzzling of the outgoing CJOC head Stu Beare, on the abandonment of the military.

Someone who provides high-level financial advice to several key government ministries told me the other day that, in order to produce the desired federal budget surplus, the Department of National Defence may have suffered the worst cuts of any department.

Estimates bandied about last week put defence spending at around 1% of GDP. This figure may actually flatter the government. It could be less than 1%, especially if DND is not allowed to spend all the money it has been allotted this year, which seems likely.

The upshot is that Canada appears set to maintain its pathetic position near the bottom of the NATO spending table — well behind such economic basket cases as Albania, Italy and Portugal.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/09/08/matthew-fisher-canadian-generals-muzzled-by-harper-government/

Argus · September 9, 2014

Use it or lose it, Harper said ,as he announced a new arctic base for Canada. But if you have to spend money, well, hey the cameras are gone now so what's the point, eh?

Those plans have now been reduced to minor upgrades to the aging 1970s-era jetty, an unheated warehouse and a smaller tank farm that can store only one year’s supply of fuel instead of two. Trailers will house up to six people — double that in an emergency — but only during the summer. The Arctic base “will have no functional use during winter,” says the briefing note. Gone, too, are plans for the “jet-capable” airstrip mentioned seven years ago in a news release. Instead, the military will have to either come in by sea or fly to nearby Arctic Bay, land on a gravel runway and then drive 33 kilometres to Nanisivik.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/09/09/defence-ministry-drastically-cut-plan-to-overhaul-arctic-base-in-attempt-escape-soaring-price-tag-documents-reveal/

Derek 2.0 · September 9, 2014

Matthew Fisher makes some valid points in his column today on the Harper government's muzzling of the outgoing CJOC head Stu Beare, on the abandonment of the military.

In a Democracy, military leadership serves and advises the elected Government…….When the military interjects itself into politics, bad things can happen…………If the now retired General has a strong position counter to that of the Government, he’s free to seek political office.

None the less, the article again relies upon GDP, and uses Italy as an example of reduced spending levels…….of course “stats” don’t always tell the whole storey, the Italians are amongst the top of spending (in actual dollars) amongst NATO, and have a large navy (with aircraft carriers!!!), a large air force (one of the largest fighter fleets in NATO!!!) and a large (mechanized centric) army, well being one of the few NATO members that has the inherent capability to actually deploy their army abroad without reliance upon charted ships and (Russian) transport aircraft….

….On the Inverse, Estonia is often mentioned as a contrast, since they meet the 2% figure, yet their air force is made up of a handful of surplus Soviet helicopters, their navy is made up of a couple of diving tenders and their army is only slightly better equipped than some North American police forces….

“Stats” don’t often tell the full story…..

Argus · September 9, 2014

In a Democracy, military leadership serves and advises the elected Government…….When the military interjects itself into politics, bad things can happen…………If the now retired General has a strong position counter to that of the Government, he’s free to seek political office.

ic

I recognize Harper muzzling the general was the thrust of the story but you might have noticed I made no comment on that. No government wants generals saying unpleasant things to the public which go against government policy.

None the less, the article again relies upon GDP,

Yes. GDP is the universal measure of how much a country devotes to its defense, as well as how much it can afford to devote to defense.

“Stats” don’t often tell the full story…..

You're suggestion is that the story of how the Harper government is treating the military would be improved were we to use some other criteria? Such as what?

PIK · September 9, 2014

ic

I recognize Harper muzzling the general was the thrust of the story but you might have noticed I made no comment on that. No government wants generals saying unpleasant things to the public which go against government policy.

Yes. GDP is the universal measure of how much a country devotes to its defense, as well as how much it can afford to devote to defense.

You're suggestion is that the story of how the Harper government is treating the military would be improved were we to use some other criteria? Such as what?

Just like trudeau does not want his general opening his mouth about his opinion on Israel. But since it was a canadain warship flown over by 3 russian jets ,tells me harper is getting under putin's skin.

waldo · September 9, 2014

Just like trudeau does not want his general opening his mouth about his opinion on Israel. But since it was a canadain warship flown over by 3 russian jets ,tells me harper is getting under putin's skin.

ya ya, Putin is shaking and fearful of Harper's bully-boy routines! That frigate posed absolutely no threat. When CF-18's flew/fly up to wave at the Bear (aka Peter MacKay photo-ops), was that a sign of, as you say, "Putin getting under Harper's skin"?

Derek 2.0 · September 9, 2014

Yes. GDP is the universal measure of how much a country devotes to its defense, as well as how much it can afford to devote to defense.

Does GDP measure the finished product? North Korea and Estonia spend a greater percent of their GDP on defense than the United States and Canada, so does that mean North Korea and Estonia have more capable militaries?

You're suggestion is that the story of how the Harper government is treating the military would be improved were we to use some other criteria? Such as what?

How is the current Government treating the military “poorly”?

What has happened, post Afghanistan, the portion of the budgeted dedicated to the increased costs associated with fighting an actual war, and maintaining the equipment, conducting the pre deployment training etc. has been returned to general revenue………you consider no longer funding the war in Afghanistan as treating the military poorly?

Have any of these cuts to DND, prevented the Forces from implementing the policy as dictated by the elected Government?

Derek 2.0 · September 9, 2014

But since it was a canadain warship flown over by 3 russian jets ,tells me harper is getting under putin's skin.

..........Or has been done for decades, by both sides, Russian Naval Aviation is attempting to collect electronic intelligence, doubly so with the post FELEX HMCS Toronto (now equipped with newer Search/Fire Control radars) from the upgrade program initiated and funded by the Harper Government.

Smallc · September 9, 2014

As fas as I know, HMCS Toronto is still pre FELEX.

Derek 2.0 · September 9, 2014

As fas as I know, HMCS Toronto is still pre FELEX.

You might be (partially) correct……..the initial schedule was thrown out with delays to the MHP, all ships have received some upgrades during regular maintenance periods, but the complete upgrade requiring extended time in the graving dock hasn’t been completed for all the class……..the Toronto, being older than most, I would assume has gone through everything, minus the alterations for the MHP.

Argus · September 9, 2014

Does GDP measure the finished product? North Korea and Estonia spend a greater percent of their GDP on defense than the United States and Canada, so does that mean North Korea and Estonia have more capable militaries?

Clearly there are other factors involved in such things. North Korea, by way of example, probably pays its draftee army almost nothing. Canada, on the other hand, spends most of the billions it does on the military on salaries, benefits and pensions.

Are you saying NATO are idiots to set a target for funding their members' military of 2% of GDP? Are you suggesting Canadas' military is just as capable consuming 1% of GDP as it would be if it was consuming 1.4% as it was before Harper cut it? I'm really not sure what your objection is to all of this. I had seen you as a supporter of the military but it seems that support falls away to nothing compared to your support for the Harper Conservatives.

How is the current Government treating the military “poorly”?

Should I take it you've read none of the cites I've posted on this thread?

What has happened, post Afghanistan, the portion of the budgeted dedicated to the increased costs associated with fighting an actual war, and maintaining the equipment, conducting the pre deployment training etc. has been returned to general revenue………you consider no longer funding the war in Afghanistan as treating the military poorly?

Now you're simply being dishonest. Stephen Harper has committed himself since his first day as a politician to the notion that the Canadian Armed Forces were being woefully, even disgracefully underfunded by the Liberals. He has said so many, many, MANY times over many years. He promised a gradual, concerted increase after inflation in the size of the military budget, and that had nothing to do with Afghanistan.

Yet he's dropped funding for the military back to what it was in the Chretien years. Apparently that's no longer disgraceful, huh? Apparently that's PLENTY!

Have any of these cuts to DND, prevented the Forces from implementing the policy as dictated by the elected Government?

Well, given the generals and admirals aren't allowed to say anything about what that's doing to training and readiness standards I suppose that's difficult to say. But you can't have it both ways. Either funding for the military was a complete disgrace as Stephen Harper has always said, in which case it's still a disgrace, or Stephen Harper lied through his teeth all those years about his concern for the military. Which is it?

dre · September 9, 2014

No I'm all on side with trying to properly estimate risks and limit the costs of addressing them accordingly. I do however think that trying to quantify the military risk that Canada faces over the next several decades is difficult, because predicting the future is difficult. 5 years ago, who could have predicted the current situation in Iraq and Syria? Or in Ukraine? Let alone 10-20 years ago (about the timescale of military acquisition programs apparently)?

I understand your point about the pink unicorns, but the chance Canada might face some kind of threat where it would benefit from having a military is higher than that (i.e. not zero).

In lieu of good predictions about what will happen in the future, a prudent course of action might simply be to have a comparable military force to the next guy, so as not to present an overly tempting target. And that's probably what about 1-2% spending can achieve.

The problem is military spending can actually CAUSE threats, because you give politicians the tools required to have an interventionalist foreign policy. And its evident from the rise of anti western extremist movements over the last few decades that origionate from various points of intervention that kind of policy causes all kinds of unintended consequences.

My concern isnt the money... its whether our own government can be trusted with a more powerful military, and whether it will really make us any safer or make us less safe, and whether it will be used for defense or offense.

Smallc · September 9, 2014

You might be (partially) correct..the initial schedule was thrown out with delays to the MHP, all ships have received some upgrades during regular maintenance periods, but the complete upgrade requiring extended time in the graving dock hasnt been completed for all the class..the Toronto, being older than most, I would assume has gone through everything, minus the alterations for the MHP.

I just read a revised schedule that had it as the last ship to go in, next fall.

dre · September 9, 2014

Yes. GDP is the universal measure of how much a country devotes to its defense, as well as how much it can afford to devote to defense.

The problem is its also a very poor and illogical measure. Military spending is basically defense insurance and a country does not cost more to defend just because its economy grows and it doesnt cost less to defend because its economy shrinks. And a country with a half dozen international borders with potentially hostile neigbors obviously had different needs that a country with one international border with its largest trading partner.

overthere · September 9, 2014

There were a few thousand who decided to join the American "liberation" and about 120 of them were killed - a few less than were killed in the American "liberation" of Afghanistan.

Sigh.

These are the countries involved in the war Afghanistan. You're absolutely right though, AMERIKKKA was one of them. Bastards.

PIK · September 9, 2014

ya ya, Putin is shaking and fearful of Harper's bully-boy routines! That frigate posed absolutely no threat. When CF-18's flew/fly up to wave at the Bear (aka Peter MacKay photo-ops), was that a sign of, as you say, "Putin getting under Harper's skin"?

You are no fun at all. And this stalking of yours....................

waldo · September 9, 2014

You are no fun at all. And this stalking of yours....................

responding to a post of yours is not stalking... the posts of yours that I highlighted where you stated and asked about personal life aspects of mine, that was me pointing out your stalking. Clearly it struck a nerve with you! But hey now, when I responded to your most recent personal question, where I in turn asked about your PMO job (as one of the 'short pants kids'), was that a lil' too close for comfort?

Derek 2.0 · September 9, 2014

Clearly there are other factors involved in such things. North Korea, by way of example, probably pays its draftee army almost nothing. Canada, on the other hand, spends most of the billions it does on the military on salaries, benefits and pensions.

And statistics can be interpreted in many different fashions……….You are correct on expenses, ~60% of DND’s budget goes towards personal costs………One would think DND would cut costs there first, perhaps the elected Government should conduct a review of defence strategy……

Are you saying NATO are idiots to set a target for funding their members' military of 2% of GDP?

In a sense…….as you acknowledged, there are differing factories to determine the end result of each members contribution…setting an arbitrary number results in Estonia receiving praise, and condemnation for Canada.

Are you suggesting Canadas' military is just as capable consuming 1% of GDP as it would be if it was consuming 1.4% as it was before Harper cut it?

Capable of what? Fighting a land war in Afghanistan at the current funding level or responding to policy required of it by the elected Government.

I'm really not sure what your objection is to all of this. I had seen you as a supporter of the military but it seems that support falls away to nothing compared to your support for the Harper Conservatives.

I am a supporter of the military, I’ve spent over 30 years of my life involved directly and indirectly with/in it, coupled with my eldest currently attending RMC…………I’m also partisan in regards to the current Government, but have still criticized both (on this site in the various related threads also) the Government (and past Governments) and DND when I feel it’s warranted in my view.

In this regard, I’m in favour of the Governments short term reductions, that aren’t causing irreversible harm (despite what the media mongers), well the Government is conducting a defense strategy review of our nation’s needs. This, coupled with the Governments short-medium-long term roadmaps for procurement and I see nothing of real concern on the horizon. Are there areas that need to be improved? Certainly, but as a fiscal conservative, throwing money at a problem alone rarely fixes said problem long term………..

Should I take it you've read none of the cites I've posted on this thread?

Sure, and many more just like them........my opinion on the Armed Forces isn't formed by the media.

Now you're simply being dishonest. Stephen Harper has committed himself since his first day as a politician to the notion that the Canadian Armed Forces were being woefully, even disgracefully underfunded by the Liberals. He has said so many, many, MANY times over many years. He promised a gradual, concerted increase after inflation in the size of the military budget, and that had nothing to do with Afghanistan.
Yet he's dropped funding for the military back to what it was in the Chretien years. Apparently that's no longer disgraceful, huh? Apparently that's PLENTY!

Yet the current Government continued upon programs initiated by the previous Government, well initiating (and completed some) programs on its own, all aimed at renewal of our armed forces. In addition, the current Government has introduced capabilities to our armed forces that they lost during the decade of darkness, well adding capabilities that we’ve never had………..all well fighting a war on the other side of the planet, in a time of economic turmoil………I have no issue, by and large, with the Governments performance on the file, well acknowledging that aside from the period of ~1940-1960, no other Government has done better by the Armed Forces.

Well, given the generals and admirals aren't allowed to say anything about what that's doing to training and readiness standards I suppose that's difficult to say. But you can't have it both ways. Either funding for the military was a complete disgrace as Stephen Harper has always said, in which case it's still a disgrace, or Stephen Harper lied through his teeth all those years about his concern for the military. Which is it?

Your comparisons aren’t apt though, during the cited “decade of darkness” there were multiple examples of our Armed Forces not being able to meet the objectives of the elected Government, a great many of these examples can be attributed to the poor material condition of the Forces………the only such examples that I can recall during this current Governments tenure, were the lack of rotary lift in Afghanistan, the recent fire aboard the Protecteur, and the poor material condition of the remaining Tribals………….