Canadian military and security spending

[Derek 2.0]

So you,re just assuming he's lying then.

Of course, and will do such until the NDP say otherwise.

The GIS is to be phased in over 10 years. The police officers are obviously to be phased in. Home mail delivery (which I disagree with would also have to be phased back in.

Source?

I would forgive them that, were they not continuing the neglect now.

You equate the Government to be neglecting the Forces because they aren't funding a war we're no longer fighting?

They chose other priorities. I don't agree with those priorities. They broke their promise on this, plain and simple, and they have no plans to fix it going forward.

No plan? There are thousands of military, civilians staff and contractors, employed in the implementation of a plan that you say doesn't exist?

Based on what exactly? I guess 2006 Stephen Harper wasn't grounded in reality, either.

Your suggestion that the Government is just "putting off" programs.........is both untrue and devoid of understanding the complexities involved.

If you stop training, you lose competency. It's not difficult.

So you're suggesting the army should still be conducting extensive Afghan pre-deployment training? Reality seems difficult for you........

I agree it should be cut in some areas, but in the immediate aftermath of recent conflicts some services and payouts should have been expanded.

Why? The majority of past/current/future claims (upwards of 80% IIRC) are encompassing hearing loss.........

I've lived with an NDP provincial government for more than a decade and a half. They're not all that bad. I'm not sure I'll vote for them in the Spring, but a competent leader, like Doer was and like Mulcair seems to be, is the most important element of any government.

And I lived through an NDP Government for several cycles in BC and we had scandal after scandal.........

[Smallc]

Of course, and will do such until the NDP say otherwise.

That seems like a strange thing to do.

Source?

I meant to say 4 years:

"Our commitment once fully phased in over the next four years will see a $400-million annual increase to the GIS program," said Mulcair, calling it an important first step to lifting 200,000 seniors out of poverty.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-promises-to-boost-guaranteed-income-supplement-for-seniors-1.3201845

You don't hire 2500 police officers tomorrow. It's easily reasoned.

You equate the Government to be neglecting the Forces because they aren't funding a war we're no longer fighting?

They aren't funding any wars (although they have partially returned to that practice in budget 2015, finally). They're taking them out of the general DND budget, something they said they wouldn't do. They've also cut base funding, something else they said they wouldn't do.

No plan? There are thousands of military, civilians staff and contractors, employed in the implementation of a plan that you say doesn't exist?

They have no plan to bridge the current funding shortfall, estimated at $3B per year, growing each year.

Your suggestion that the Government is just "putting off" programs.........is both untrue and devoid of understanding the complexities involved.

That's exactly what they're doing:

http://www.obj.ca/Other/Special-Reports/2014-02-11/article-3612108/BUDGET-2014%3A-Government-to-indefinitely-put-off-$3.1B-in-military-spending/1

There's no evidence that when (if?) they even reallocate that money, that they'll adjust for inflation or that such a delay was not simply a budget trick to achieve balance.

So you're suggesting the army should still be conducting extensive Afghan pre-deployment training? Reality seems difficult for you

The military should be training at a level that keeps them ready for likely threats.

Why? The majority of past/current/future claims (upwards of 80% IIRC) are encompassing hearing loss.........

We were talking about traumatic brain injury, something that we've only recently begun to understand.

[Derek 2.0]

That seems like a strange thing to do.

Then call me strange, since I'm of the mind party policy isn't fact until stated as such, versus baseless rumor

They aren't funding any wars (although they have partially returned to that practice in budget 2015, finally). They're taking them out of the general DND budget, something they said they wouldn't do. They've also cut base funding, something else they said they wouldn't do.

That's dependent on size/scope of the mission.........funding operations out of DND's annual operations budget only makes sense..

They have no plan to bridge the current funding shortfall, estimated at $3B per year, growing each year.

What shortfall?

That's exactly what they're doing:

http://www.obj.ca/Ot...tary-spending/1

There's no evidence that when (if?) they even reallocate that money, that they'll adjust for inflation or that such a delay was not simply a budget trick to achieve balance.

Reread your article:

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty disagreed with the suggestion that the planned spending is being cancelled while speaking to reporters on Tuesday afternoon.

He said there was no point in setting aside money that the armed forces would be unable to use.

DND returns money every year......

The military should be training at a level that keeps them ready for likely threats.

They aren't ready for likely threats? You're not suggesting the forces will be going back to the Afghan dirt-box are you?

We were talking about traumatic brain injury, something that we've only recently begun to understand.

How many Afghan vets versus Korean/WW II vets?

[Smallc]

Then call me strange, since I'm of the mind party policy isn't fact until stated as such, versus baseless rumor

We discuss baseless rumour a lot on here. I'm willing to believe this as a possibility as much as I'm willing to believe that the Conservatives won't do what they say they will, given their history on this issue.

That's dependent on size/scope of the mission.........funding operations out of DND's annual operations budget only makes sense..

They promised to do otherwise. Apparently, that isn't important to you.

What shortfall?

In order to sustain the existing number of troops, bases, tanks, planes and ships, the budget office says the Conservatives will have to spend about 1.6 per cent of GDP, which would be an increase of at least $3 billion annually.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-s-defence-costs-unsustainable-over-next-decade-pbo-1.2298281

Reread your article:

DND returns money every year

Nice excuse. Maybe they should fix the procurement system, so they can actually spend it.

They aren't ready for likely threats? You're not suggesting the forces will be going back to the Afghan dirt-box are you?

If they reduce their training tempo they certainly won't be.

How many Afghan vets versus Korean/WW II vets?

How much money did we spend on traumatic brain injury and PTSD, things we knew little to nothing about, in the past?

[Derek 2.0]

We discuss baseless rumour a lot on here. I'm willing to believe this as a possibility as much as I'm willing to believe that the Conservatives won't do what they say they will, given their history on this issue.

Ahh so you admit your NDP ~20% budget increase was a baseless rumor..........like I was saying.

They promised to do otherwise. Apparently, that isn't important to you.

As I said, its dependent on both size and scope........if an operations fits within the the operations budget, why would we fund it from a differing budget with new money?

In order to sustain the existing number of troops, bases, tanks, planes and ships, the budget office says the Conservatives will have to spend about 1.6 per cent of GDP, which would be an increase of at least $3 billion annually.

Dated source..........as of May of this year:

Nice excuse. Maybe they should fix the procurement system, so they can actually spend it.

Its not an excuse, but reality, something your devoid off......believe me or not, DND can't just go down to the local defense store and come home with new tanks, planes and ships

If they reduce their training tempo they certainly won't be.

So by eliminating Afghan pre-deployment training the military isn't training for likely threats?

How much money did we spend on traumatic brain injury and PTSD, things we knew little to nothing about, in the past?

I have no idea.......not as much as on hearing aides and batteries.

[Smallc]

Ahh so you admit your NDP ~20% budget increase was a baseless rumor..........like I was saying.

It's not baseless, it's simply been confirmed...or denied.

As I said, its dependent on both size and scope........if an operations fits within the the operations budget, why would we fund it from a differing budget with new money?

Because...the budget is already too small.

Dated source..........as of May of this year:

That barely even begins to close the gap.. Too little, and conveniently, not for two more years.

Its not an excuse, but reality, something your devoid off......believe me or not, DND can't just go down to the local defense store and come home with new tanks, planes and ships :roll eyes:

And yet other countries do it better, and for less. We cut costs and capability.

So by eliminating Afghan pre-deployment training the military isn't training for likely threats?

They're reduced training of all types, including sailing and flying hours.

I have no idea.......not as much as on hearing aides and batteries.

Nice attempts at deflection.

[Derek 2.0]

It's not baseless, it's simply been confirmed...or denied.

So its baseless.

Because...the budget is already too small.

To small for what?

That barely even begins to close the gap.. Too little, and conveniently, not for two more years.

It exceeds the gap.......and why would you have the Government allocate funding for items today when we have no plans to purchase said items for several years+

DND doesn't have a piggybank, what they don't spend is returned..........

And yet other countries do it better, and for less. We cut costs and capability.

Name one.

They're reduced training of all types, including sailing and flying hours.

Of course they've reduced flight training and sailing time, we've retired 5 surface vessels and have aircraft deployed on operation in Iraq and Europe.......are you suggesting those overseas on operations aren't receiving training? I'm shocked!!!!

Nice attempts at deflection.

Not a deflection at all, but reality......most veterans major health concern is hearing loss.

[Derek 2.0]

See below...

...the gap is this. We spend about $20 - 21B right now. To maintain our current forces, as the are, the PBO estimates that we should be spending $24B right now. Not only have the Conservatives cut the base funding that the promised to provide, but said funding was already a short.

So the PBO suggest the Forces require $24 billion, and the graph I provided (current as of May 2015) that demonstrates the budget elevator for the Forces that brings them to ~$25 billion by the end of this decade and over $30 billion by the end of the next is a cut?

And so even less money that was promised is actually utilized, causing a further shortfall (not to mention the effects of inflation).

You're dodging the question......what would the forces do with today with funding earmarked for programs that are not ready to be purchased?

Australia

Collins class, DDG (both capability gap from the previous class and current overruns and delays), NH90 problems and their own MHP disaster the Sea Sprite.......that Australia?

These things were a reality before we retired 4 surface vessels (the 5th is still technically on active duty). That was there quick fix, given limited resources.

I'm including Huron.......and no, these things weren't a reality before, as reduce training time is a reflection of a decade of deployments and the frigates undergoing FELEX.......

Also, until this year, those flying days overseas were funded from the normal DND budget. There's no reason that they should have been lower, given that those aircraft were still operating, just somewhere else.

You mean flight training was down over the last several years when the Hornets have been on several deployments and finalized the IMP program? I'm shocked!!!

[Smallc]

So the PBO suggest the Forces require $24 billion, and the graph I provided (current as of May 2015) that demonstrates the budget elevator for the Forces that brings them to ~$25 billion by the end of this decade and over $30 billion by the end of the next is a cut?

You understand how much less that money will be worth by the end of the decade, I hope. That's why no one was impressed with it.

You're dodging the question......what would the forces do with today with funding earmarked for programs that are not ready to be purchased?

Many of these things were supposed to have been purchased years ago. That they're still not ready is a testament to failure.

Collins class, DDG (both capability gap from the previous class and current overruns and delays), NH90 problems and their own MHP disaster the Sea Sprite.......that Australia?

The one that's shooting to spend the same percentage of GDP that we promised to, while at the same time having more capability and a smaller GDP than us? Yeah, that one.

I'm including Huron.......and no, these things weren't a reality before, as reduce training time is a reflection of a decade of deployments and the frigates undergoing FELEX.......

Half of the MCDVs were tied up pre destroyer retirement, because of lack of people and money. That, again, is a testament to failure.

You mean flight training was down over the last several years when the Hornets have been on several deployments and finalized the IMP program? I'm shocked!!!

You can do your best to paint the clouds golden, but they're still clouds. We are now near decade of darkness spending levels, and there's no excuse for that.

[Derek 2.0]

You understand how much less that money will be worth by the end of the decade, I hope. That's why no one was impressed with it.

Sure, and your point? You're banging on about a PBO report from 2014, released months prior to the long term funding announcement....do you understand that?

Many of these things were supposed to have been purchased years ago. That they're still not ready is a testament to failure.

What things and what failure?

The one that's shooting to spend the same percentage of GDP that we promised to, while at the same time having more capability and a smaller GDP than us? Yeah, that one.

Who cares what they spend, they've shown clearly that throwing more money at problems isn't always a solution.

Half of the MCDVs were tied up pre destroyer retirement, because of lack of people and money. That, again, is a testament to failure.

Or a testament to the RCN's decades long commitment to the GWOT.........of which strained the navy of both people and resources.

You can do your best to paint the clouds golden, but they're still clouds. We are now near decade of darkness spending levels, and there's no excuse for that.

You realize you're comparing today's forces condition to those of the 90s........that is laughable

[Smallc]

Sure, and your point? You're banging on about a PBO report from 2014, released months prior to the long term funding announcement....do you understand that?

I understand that the money announced there does little to cover the gap that the PBO reported (a gap that you both say didn't exist and was fixed).

What things and what failure?

There are many. UAVs, FWSAR, the cancelled maritime aircraft (though our upgrades turned out well, it wasn't what was promised) and shipbuilding that was delayed by a lack of vision and understanding in 2006.

Who cares what they spend, they've shown clearly that throwing more money at problems isn't always a solution.

And yet they have more C-17s, AAR aircraft that can refuel all of their planes, and interim fighters. They're building ships that we aren't even dreaming of.

Or a testament to the RCN's decades long commitment to the GWOT.........of which strained the navy of both people and resources.

Or, as has been reported in more than one source, to cost cutting and neglect.

You realize you're comparing today's forces condition to those of the 90s........that is laughable

to the 1993 - 2003 period. We are now at 2005 spending levels. Not far to go now.

[Derek 2.0]

I understand that the money announced there does little to cover the gap that the PBO reported (a gap that you both say didn't exist and was fixed).

Well no, you don't, as made evident by the cited graph.....

There are many. UAVs, FWSAR, the cancelled maritime aircraft (though our upgrades turned out well, it wasn't what was promised) and shipbuilding that was delayed by a lack of vision and understanding in 2006.

What UAVs? You mean the past program that looked at purchasing Global Hawks, the same Global Hawks the USAF found problematic and has put in storage, and DND altered said program to include an equal number of manned aircraft, and there is an evaluation of to contenders ongoing?

FWSAR? The same program that well in a Minority Government, the Opposition accused the Government of sole sourcing a contract for C-27s, forcing the Government/RCAF to rewrite said requirements so aircraft produced in Canada could also get in on the process? That FWSAR program?

And what cancelled maritime aircraft? The CP-140s will carry on out to the 2020s/2030s as planned, hence both the (now completed) AIMP & ASLEP programs....

Shipbuilding was delayed due to lack of vision on the part of the Government? (I won't respond here as I'm still waiting for your response in the shipbuilding thread where you and Argus made the same unfounded charge)

And yet they have more C-17s, AAR aircraft that can refuel all of their planes, and interim fighters. They're building ships that we aren't even dreaming of.

They RAAF purchases have come at the expense of a diminished rotary component for their army.......and their ship building programs, Collins class and Hobart class (and their decades long ordeal with Amphibious lift), aren't paths to be followed........

Or, as has been reported in more than one source, to cost cutting and neglect.

Now mooted by the retirement of the DDGs and AORs.........

to the 1993 - 2003 period. We are now at 2005 spending levels. Not far to go now.

Not even in the same league today as the force were through the 70s to the early 2000s........

[Smallc]

Well no, you don't, as made evident by the cited graph.....

The graph showed originally planned expenditures vs revised expenditures, and the difference between them. It ends up with a huge hole in the middle (money is worth more now than it will be at the end of the decade) and says nothing of the gap between committed funding and that required according to the PBO.

What UAVs? You mean the past program that looked at purchasing Global Hawks, the same Global Hawks the USAF found problematic and has put in storage, and DND altered said program to include an equal number of manned aircraft, and there is an evaluation of to contenders ongoing?

And yet they're still looking at UAVs.

FWSAR? The same program that well in a Minority Government, the Opposition accused the Government of sole sourcing a contract for C-27s, forcing the Government/RCAF to rewrite said requirements so aircraft produced in Canada could also get in on the process? That FWSAR program?

Yes, the program they bungled.

And what cancelled maritime aircraft? The CP-140s will carry on out to the 2020s/2030s as planned, hence both the (now completed) AIMP & ASLEP programs....

The original plan was for new aircraft under the CFDS.

Shipbuilding was delayed due to lack of vision on the part of the Government? (I won't respond here as I'm still waiting for your response in the shipbuilding thread where you and Argus made the same unfounded charge)

They took government in 2006 and didn't even start the strategy until 2009. We're 3 years behind what we could have been.

They RAAF purchases have come at the expense of a diminished rotary component for their army.......and their ship building programs, Collins class and Hobart class (and their decades long ordeal with Amphibious lift), aren't paths to be followed........

And yet they're getting capability, and we're not.

Now mooted by the retirement of the DDGs and AORs.........

Retirements leaving massive holes in our fleet.

Not even in the same league today as the force were through the 70s to the early 2000s........

Just leave this funding level for about 10 years, and see what happens.

[Derek 2.0]

The graph showed originally planned expenditures vs revised expenditures, and the difference between them. It ends up with a huge hole in the middle (money is worth more now than it will be at the end of the decade) and says nothing of the gap between committed funding and that required according to the PBO.

What hole? It shows funding increasing more than addressing the very shortfalls the PBO highlighted last year........

And yet they're still looking at UAVs.

Long term when many of the technical hurdles associated with operating UAVs in Canadian airspace has been addressed, instead favoring a proven, manned option........

Yes, the program they bungled.

How did they "bungle" it? By the Official Opposition quashing the first contract or several bidders threatening legal action?

The original plan was for new aircraft under the CFDS.

.....once the CP-140s start to retire in the later 2020s.......the just completed upgrade programs began in the 90s........as I said, there isn't a giant military version of Walmart out there........

They took government in 2006 and didn't even start the strategy until 2009. We're 3 years behind what we could have been.

You're out of touch of reality........using Australia since you cited them, the RAN retired HMAS Perth in 1999 (then ~35 years old and decades since obsolete) to be replaced by HMAS Hobart in ~2017-2018.....of course the RAN DDG program is expected to be a billion USD over budget and reduced to three destroyers instead of 4........nearly 20 years later........producing a design born in the later 90s later this decade.......

Versus the Canadian program that will see upwards of 15 modern vessels procured starting the early 2020s, with the only capability gap caused by unexpected accidents that forced the early retirements of the 280s

We've bungled our procurement and Australia is the shining beacon leading the way forward? Let me know the color of the sky in your world.......

And yet they're getting capability, and we're not.

What capability are they getting that we aren't?

Retirements leaving massive holes in our fleet.

What "massive holes"? UNREP shortfalls have been addressed in the short-medium-long term and the 280s were obsolete in the 1990s.....

Just leave this funding level for about 10 years, and see what happens.

Good thing DND's budget is increasing each year until it reaches 30+ billion annually then.......

[Smallc]

What hole? It shows funding increasing more than addressing the very shortfalls the PBO highlighted last year........

It does nothing of the sort. We need to spend $3B per year now increasing with inflation into the future. That's not what the plan does.

Long term when many of the technical hurdles associated with operating UAVs in Canadian airspace has been addressed, instead favoring a proven, manned option........

And yet they made the promise, then failed to fulfill it. We're procured almost nothing in the last 5 years.

How did they "bungle" it? By the Official Opposition quashing the first contract or several bidders threatening legal action?

By wording the contract so only one bidder could succeed.

once the CP-140s start to retire in the later 2020s.......the just completed upgrade programs began in the 90s........as I said, there isn't a giant military version of Walmart out there........

The original plan was to procure new aircraft in the 2015 - 2017 range.

Versus the Canadian program that will see upwards of 15 modern vessels procured starting the early 2020s, with the only capability gap caused by unexpected accidents that forced the early retirements of the 280s

Nothing the Conservatives have done in the last 5 years gives me any confidence that they will actually proceed with a purchase of that size.

What capability are they getting that we aren't?

LHD. They already have LPD, something we lack now.

What "massive holes"? UNREP shortfalls have been addressed in the short-medium-long term and the 280s were obsolete in the 1990s.....

No AAD, and no AORs of our own for at least 18 months.

Good thing DND's budget is increasing each year until it reaches 30+ billion annually then.......

While falling or at best remaining steady in real defence dollars over that time. All in all, the conservatives will have increased the budget by...nothing.

[Derek 2.0]

It does nothing of the sort. We need to spend $3B per year now increasing with inflation into the future. That's not what the plan does.

Why do we need to spend $3 billion a year now?

And yet they made the promise, then failed to fulfill it. We're procured almost nothing in the last 5 years.

You would have the Government purchase UAVs that we would be unable to operate in Canadian airspace?

By wording the contract so only one bidder could succeed.

Or could it be that only one contractor offered a product that met the RCAF's requirements.........a pressurized cabin, than a human can stand fully erect in with a rear ramp might sound like a Government trick to the ignorant masses, but sure seems important to the RCAF.........

The original plan was to procure new aircraft in the 2015 - 2017 range.

No it wasn't, the original plan called for a portion of the fleet to be replaced by UAVs, instead more of the existing fleet was upgraded and additional aircraft will be purchased under MAISR......

Nothing the Conservatives have done in the last 5 years gives me any confidence that they will actually proceed with a purchase of that size.

Right, but then you suggested the Australians are a beacon of enlightenment.......

LHD. They already have LPD, something we lack now.

What LPDs? The old American tank landing ships they spent a fortune on that never worked or the used RFA LSD they purchased used and has had nothing but engine and electrical problems?

We could have LHDs too mind you within the current budget framework, but of course, we'd need to sacrifice 1/3rd of our surface fleet, well operating far less capable and smaller frigates.........

No AAD, and no AORs of our own for at least 18 months.

So? You've suggested the RAN was the one to emulate, they haven't had viable DDGs since the 1980s, likewise the RN only recently replacing their type 42 class, that was also obsolete by the early 90s..........Since there is no realistic way we could have produced new DDGs earlier, you'd have the RCN continue to operate the obsolete and clapped out 280s?

And who cares if we're leasing AORs? It doesn't effect mission readiness........

While falling or at best remaining steady in real defence dollars over that time. All in all, the conservatives will have increased the budget by...nothing.

Good, you haven't demonstrated a reason as to why it should be increased.

[Smallc]

Why do we need to spend $3 billion a year now?

Ask the PBO.

You would have the Government purchase UAVs that we would be unable to operate in Canadian airspace?

There are other uses. There were two types we were to procure. We didn't procure any.

Or could it be that only one contractor offered a product that met the RCAF's requirements.........a pressurized cabin, than a human can stand fully erect in with a rear ramp might sound like a Government trick to the ignorant masses, but sure seems important to the RCAF

While artificially limiting choice. Other countries use equipment that we disqualified.

No it wasn't, the original plan called for a portion of the fleet to be replaced by UAVs, instead more of the existing fleet was upgraded and additional aircraft will be purchased under MAISR

You're misremembering:

Yet there is no denying that the strategy has passed its best-before date. For example, the strategy says Canada will obtain new maritime patrol planes as well as fighter jets by 2020. Both projects, however, have been shelved for the foreseeable future.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/new-defence-strategy-still-in-the-works-four-years-after-original-declared-unaffordable

Right, but then you suggested the Australians are a beacon of enlightenment.......

I was talking about funding, and what that is buying them.

What LPDs? The old American tank landing ships they spent a fortune on that never worked or the used RFA LSD they purchased used and has had nothing but engine and electrical problems?

The second.

We could have LHDs too mind you within the current budget framework, but of course, we'd need to sacrifice 1/3rd of our surface fleet, well operating far less capable and smaller frigates

That's because we don't have a big enough budget. Thanks for admitting it.

Good, you haven't demonstrated a reason as to why it should be increased.

We pledged to spend more, for one. We're a huge laggard within NATO. 2006 Harper agreed. I'm sure you did then too. Apparently, 2015 Harper thinks Paul Martin was spending the right amount.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Smallc

[Derek 2.0]

Ask the PBO.

Why? The PBO report you cited is dated.

There are other uses. There were two types we were to procure. We didn't procure any.

Other uses like what? Not being able to use them domestically would have been a scandal........I'll ask again, why would you have the Government spend several billion dollars on UAV that we couldn't even use at home, namely in the North, as was their primary intended purpose?

While artificially limiting choice. Other countries use equipment that we disqualified.

Huh? You'd have the RCAF no longer able to deploy rescue boats or survival packages out the back of the aircraft, like we do currently.........as I said, you have not a clue to the current and future requirements of FWSAR.

You're misremembering:

Yet there is no denying that the strategy has passed its best-before date. For example, the strategy says Canada will obtain new maritime patrol planes as well as fighter jets by 2020. Both projects, however, have been shelved for the foreseeable future.

Ahh no I'm not......your dated link doesn't jibe with the last months updated letter of interest page.......

I was talking about funding, and what that is buying them.

Buying them what? The over priced junk that I cited?

The second.

So you would have Canada purchase a broken RFA LSD, that once fixed, wouldn't suit our requirements for a "BHS"?

That's because we don't have a big enough budget. Thanks for admitting it.

Nor does the RAN, as demonstrated by the RAN having a much smaller and less capable surface fleet......of course, in the real world, money doesn't grow on trees...........

We pledged to spend more, for one. We're a huge laggard within NATO.

I dare you to tell a Canadian Afghan vet we're a laggard within NATO...........

[Smallc]

Why? The PBO report you cited is dated.

It's from a few months ago, and the government did almost nothing to address it's criticisms. I won't be commenting further on that, as it seems you're not interested in reality.

Other uses like what? Not being able to use them domestically would have been a scandal........I'll ask again, why would you have the Government spend several billion dollars on UAV that we couldn't even use at home, namely in the North, as was their primary intended purpose?

We were also looking at tactical UAVs, not just strategic.

Huh? You'd have the RCAF no longer able to deploy rescue boats or survival packages out the back of the aircraft, like we do currently.........as I said, you have not a clue to the current and future requirements of FWSAR.

Ahh, so you don't know the capability of other aircraft available.

Ahh no I'm not......your dated link doesn't jibe with the last months updated letter of interest page.......

So you think that when someone changes their plans, the previous plans didn't exist?

Buying them what? The over priced junk that I cited?

Capability that we don't have, such as the A330 MRTT.

So you would have Canada purchase a broken RFA LSD, that once fixed, wouldn't suit our requirements for a "BHS"?

It would be significantly better than the one we're not getting.

Nor does the RAN, as demonstrated by the RAN having a much smaller and less capable surface fleet......of course, in the real world, money doesn't grow on trees...........

In the real world, Australia has less debt and better supports its forces.

I dare you to tell a Canadian Afghan vet we're a laggard within NATO...........

In terms of spending we are. I'm done with this, as with each point, you shift the goal post, or pretend the point didn't exist.

[Derek 2.0]

It's from a few months ago, and the government did almost nothing to address it's criticisms. I won't be commenting further on that, as it seems you're not interested in reality.

No, its from data complied from several years previous.........

We were also looking at tactical UAVs, not just strategic.

I know......and MAISR we fill both requirements.......

Ahh, so you don't know the capability of other aircraft available.

Yes, I do........as I know operating costs, performance data and procurement costs......

So you think that when someone changes their plans, the previous plans didn't exist?

Not at all, as I realize the reasons for changing said plans.

Capability that we don't have, such as the A330 MRTT.

It would be significantly better than the one we're not getting.

Well no, it wouldn't, as it would cost money to operate, require crews and doesn't suit our needs........and being a lemon is a factor too.

In the real world, Australia has less debt and better supports its forces.

Funny, and I thought in the real world the Australians have a whole host of procurement scandals and a retention problem forces wide........

In terms of spending we are. I'm done with this, as with each point, you shift the goal post, or pretend the point didn't exist

I'm sorry that you're ignorant on the subject and forced to repeat skewed talking points of the Official Opposition........

[Smallc]

The A310 MRTT (we have 2 of those) does not have the same capability as the A330 MRTT (which they have 5 of) and you and I both know that.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Smallc

[Derek 2.0]

The A310 MRTT (we have 2 of those) does not have the same capability as the A330 MRTT (which they have 5 of) and you and I both know that.

2 x A310s + 5 x C-130H versus 5 A330s..........How well do you think the far larger A330s work up North or from smaller airfields across Canada?

[Army Guy]

I'm just curious what role DND played in these shortfalls failed or delayed projects....Reason i ask is there is a lot of ammo that points that way in numerous projects.....

The handing back billions, in unspent funding , is criminal when considering the shape the forces is in now...Not changing the spending policies is criminal as well.....it leaves a black mark on the reputation of DND....

[Derek 2.0]

I'm just curious what role DND played in these shortfalls failed or delayed projects....Reason i ask is there is a lot of ammo that points that way in numerous projects.....

The handing back billions, in unspent funding , is criminal when considering the shape the forces is in now...Not changing the spending policies is criminal as well.....it leaves a black mark on the reputation of DND....

That's just it, since 2008, DND has handed back over 8 billion dollars, or better put, on average, DND doesn't spend ~5-7% of its budget each year........and the vast majority of said funds are earmarked for procurement.

Hard to cry poverty when you're returning unspent money, that's not to say I'd rather DND piss it away on new office furniture or drinks on the mess at the end of the year.......

[Argus]

NDP advisors have whispered about raising defence sending - as much as 20% ($4B in today's terms).

It will NEVER happen. I guarantee you that an NDP government will cut military spending.