Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[segnosaur]

Under Mr JT, the military will be further gutted, I'm sure. As I posted elsewhere, we view our military as a liability. Not as a career choice for our citizens as the US does.

Citation needed for your first assertion. There is no proof of that based on statements or the budget.

From: https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/investing-in-our-military/

We will also reinvest in building a leaner, more agile, better-equipped military...

I think its the term "leaner" that make many people suspicious that the military might be gutted. (Not sure how exactly they expect to have a military that is both 'leaner' and 'better equipped', since those 2 things seem to be at cross purposes... unless they plan to drastically reduce the number of soldiers, while giving them better weapons. But if they do that, it can still be argued that the military has been "gutted".)

Edited June 16, 2016 by segnosaur

[Smallc]

They should reduce the number of soldiers and bases - Australia spends more and has less of each. Unfortunately, they've promised not to do either. Australia is the definition of a leaner but better equipped (as in more and better equipment).

On the other hand, the Liberals promised to spend the exact same amount of money going forward as the Conservatives. It's hard to see that as a gutting if they keep the promise.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Smallc

[waldo]

From: https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/investing-in-our-military/

We will also reinvest in building a leaner, more agile, better-equipped military...

I think its the term "leaner" that make many people suspicious that the military might be gutted. (Not sure how exactly they expect to have a military that is both 'leaner' and 'better equipped', since those 2 things seem to be at cross purposes... unless they plan to drastically reduce the number of soldiers, while giving them better weapons. But if they do that, it can still be argued that the military has been "gutted".)

trying to keep this thread related... take the F-35 number @65 jets. Relative to the originally procured 138 CF-18s, that's a significant downsizing; even compared to the current 79 CF-18s in operation. Was the 65 number arrived at by "gutting"... or by evaluation of need subject to, for example, role definition, technology, efficiencies, trimming of the superfluous, etc.? Choosing to interpret "leaner" as "gutting" requires supporting evidence.

.

[Army Guy]

Canada's economy is just short of $2T - that's where the number comes from. Last year, we spent about $20B - about 1% of GDP.

The current status of our military reflects the collective threats to Canada - almost none.

This years budget is only 18.6 bil, bringing it below your 1 %, with spending increasing to 19.4 for 2017/18 time period...

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-report-plan-priorities/2016-section-i-organizational-expenditure-overview.page#planned-expenditures.

It also say most purchasing for new equipment have been put off until 2021....or later....

If there are no threats to Canada why are we currently on operations in Iraq, Poland, and else where around the world..

[segnosaur]

They should reduce the number of soldiers and bases - Australia spends more and has less of each. Unfortunately, they've promised not to do either. Australia is the definition of a leaner but better equipped (as in more and better equipment).

On the other hand, Australia isn't a member of NATO, nor are they a member of NORAD. (They do have involvement in some military treaties, but I don't think they are as significant as Canada's.). Plus, they are a relatively isolated country, which reduces any threats. And, their population distribution is significantly different than Canada's. (Both countries have large areas of sparsely populated terrain, but Canada's population is spread along the country from east to west, whereas Australia's population centers are along the coasts.)

So you can't directly compare Australia's experiences with Canada's.

On the other hand, the Liberals promised to spend the exact same amount of money going forward as the Conservatives. It's hard to see that as a gutting if they keep the promise.

They have made that promise, but they have also delayed the purchase of needed military hardware (in some cases, for projects that were planned out). Given the fact that they've run up a deficit more than 3 times their original election promises, and still can't find money to (for example) buy new ships makes some people wary of their claim that they'll "spend the exact same amount going forward". (And especially since, if they did just wait to spend the money, they'd be spending it at the same time they'd want to be reducing the deficit... wouldn't look to good for the party to further damage their fiscal reputation by driving the deficit higher so close to an election.)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/military-left-waiting-on-big-ticket-items-as-liberals-shrink-funding-in-budget/article29352298/

[waldo]

#StopThreadDrift

[Argus]

We'd never be I this situation if they hadn't punted pat not only one election, but two.

Based on what? The Mulroney government signed the contract for the EH-101 and the Liberals grandly cancelled it. So what if that cost us a half billion in penalties. It's only taxpayer money anyway.

[Argus]

Is there a reason that we should spend $40B per year on the military? That extra $20B could pay for a lot of healthcare.

We put tens of billions extra into health care. Don't you remember that Martin said Health care was "fixed" for a generation?

Putting extra money into health care is a waste of time if you haven't got the balls to make major changes. And there's nothing about this government that says they've got anything between their legs.

[Argus]

The current threats to Canada don't reflect the need for zero military - simply not a large one that requires $40B in spending.

It's good that threats to Canada can be foreseen decades in advance so we have time to build up a military, acquire fighters and armored vehicles and such.

[Argus]

trying to keep this thread related... take the F-35 number @65 jets. Relative to the originally procured 138 CF-18s, that's a significant downsizing; even compared to the current 79 CF-18s in operation. Was the 65 number arrived at by "gutting"...

Yes. The Conservatives talked a good game about the military, but after the first few years they sucked ass.

[Topaz]

IS there any reason they can't update the jets we have now and order the Hornets?

[?Impact]

I think its the term "leaner" that make many people suspicious that the military might be gutted.

"leaner" means more muscle, less fat. Overall size could be smaller, the same, or even larger (depending on what "meaner" means).

[segnosaur]

IS there any reason they can't update the jets we have now and order the Hornets?

There are 2 issues here:

- If we do eventually decide to buy the Super Hornets, it should be as a result of a fair competition. Given the fact that Trudeau actively campaigned about specifically not buying the F35, some people have concerns that there will be no such fair competition

- One of the things being discussed are possible liberal plans to skip the upgrade and buy the Super Hornet (labeling it an "interim" solution to get around the whole "competition" thing.) This will lead to more problems down the road.

[overthere]

They should reduce the number of soldiers and bases - Australia spends more and has less of each. Unfortunately, they've promised not to do either. Australia is the definition of a leaner but better equipped (as in more and better equipment).

On the other hand, the Liberals promised to spend the exact same amount of money going forward as the Conservatives. It's hard to see that as a gutting if they keep the promise.

Your information about Australia is both disingenuous and not factual.

Australia spends about $22.7 billion US, 1.8% of GDP, $1000 per citizen

Canada spends about $14 billion US. .9% of GDP, $399 per citizen.

Not even close to equivalency. They are far from being leaner, they spend far more on their national defence on every metric. But their major outspending of Canada is not their biggest difference. It is a longstanding reality in Australia that a commitment to their national security transcends party p[oltics. All parties are committed to the notion that national defence is not a matter of 'if', it is a matter of how much is required, and that sum is at the top of every budget, not a football to be punted endlessly back and forth.

Of course, they don't have a major power on their doorstep paying many of the bills. We won't have that either, soon enough..

[segnosaur]

We will also reinvest in building a leaner, more agile, better-equipped military...

I think its the term "leaner" that make many people suspicious that the military might be gutted.

trying to keep this thread related... take the F-35 number @65 jets. Relative to the originally procured 138 CF-18s, that's a significant downsizing; even compared to the current 79 CF-18s in operation. Was the 65 number arrived at by "gutting"... or by evaluation of need subject to, for example, role definition, technology, efficiencies, trimming of the superfluous, etc.? Choosing to interpret "leaner" as "gutting" requires supporting evidence.

.

First of all, I suspect that at least one of the reasons we're only buying 65 jets (as opposed to our fleet of 70+ CF18s) is because, unlike our CF18s, it is a new plane, meaning that, once the initial bugs are ironed out, it will probably have less problems with maintenance. (It should also be pointed out that, as the F35 will be manufactured for at least 2 or 3 decades, there is less requirement to purchase replacements or spares up front than if we went with the Super Hornet, where the assembly line will likely be shutting down within the next decade.)

New technology could in theory reduce certain requirements, but I think there are limits. There are only so much consolidation that can be done (at least in a generation) And new technology won't necessarily reduce the military, it may just alter the types of jobs each person does. (For example, instead of having a dozen pilots, we may only need half a dozen, but we'll also need a half dozen support staff to provide the support for the new technology.)

As for "trimming of the superfluous", its a common suggestion, but I doubt it really holds much weight... every political party has probably claimed it can "trim the fat", everyone seems to fail.

Here's what I find ironic... you're trying to make the claim that Trudeau's claim of a "lean" military doesn't mean that he's gutting it, and could mean that he's getting better use of technology and/or eliminating the superfolous. But by that reasoning, purchasing the F35 (a new plane that would mean having fewer planes than the CF18 and probably fewer Super Hornets) would be the best thing to do if you wanted a 'lean' military, but its something Trudeau actively said he wouldn't do. He wants to buy cheaper, but ultimately it means he will need to buy more.

Right now, we have other pieces of evidence:

- The treatment of the Liberals under Chretien (a.k.a. the "decade of darkness"). It may be unfair to judge one government on the actions of its predicessors but Trudeau seems to have fallen into the same patterns

- The lack of major capital spending projects in the first budget (The conservatives did not do a great job with the military, but at least at the start they made some big purchases... such as the C17. Nothing like that from the Liberals.)

[Smallc]

Your information about Australia is both disingenuous and not factual.

Australia spends about $22.7 billion US, 1.8% of GDP, $1000 per citizen

Canada spends about $14 billion US. .9% of GDP, $399 per citizen.

Not even close to equivalency.

Since I specifically said they spend more, I question your reading comprehension.

They are far from being leaner, they spend far more on their national defence on every metric.

I again have to question your comprehension.

They spend more money than us, and have for about 5 years. They have, at the same time, fewer soldiers and bases, whilst having more equipment. Leaner - learn the definition.

But their major outspending of Canada is not their biggest difference. It is a longstanding reality in Australia that a commitment to their national security transcends party p[oltics. All parties are committed to the notion that national defence is not a matter of 'if', it is a matter of how much is required, and that sum is at the top of every budget, not a football to be punted endlessly back and forth.

Of course, they don't have a major power on their doorstep paying many of the bills. We won't have that either, soon enough..

I also question your factualness on this, as Australia spending more in total than Canada in defence is a relatively (within the last decade) phenomenon. Edited June 16, 2016 by Smallc

[segnosaur]

"leaner" means more muscle, less fat. Overall size could be smaller, the same, or even larger (depending on what "meaner" means).

If you want to talk dictionary definitions, leaner could also mean "offering little reward; meager".

In general, I am always wary of people who claim they can somehow find all these savings by just finding/trimming waste. Pretty much every political party in the history of the universe has probably claimed that they can be the ones who magically find savings that others have missed. (Or perhaps they assume that government employees regularly burn money to keep warm in the winter.)

Sometimes, what is often seen as "fat" is actually an integral part of the system. In other cases, the "fat" is so ingrained into the system that it would be impossible to actually dig it out without radical reforms.

If trudeau really does mean he wants a "leaner" military with less fat by somehow eliminating waste, then he is going to buck the trend of pretty much every political party everywhere.

[Smallc]

If you want to talk dictionary definitions, leaner could also mean "offering little reward; meager".

If you wanted to be dishonest and use the definition pertaining only to an activity or period of time, sure.

The definition, in regards to an industry, or company:

efficient and with no waste.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Smallc

[?Impact]

First of all, I suspect that at least one of the reasons we're only buying 65 jets (as opposed to our fleet of 70+ CF18s) is because, unlike our CF18s, it is a new plane, meaning that, once the initial bugs are ironed out, it will probably have less problems with maintenance.

Just being new does not mean there will be less problems with maintenance. The complexity of the technology has a significant influence on the maintenance cost. The F-35 is too new to have any reliable statistics, but the best estimates are that it will be about 30%-50% higher in cost per flight hour. I don't know what Canada is spending on the CF-18, if anyone has those figures it would be interesting. The estimates I have seen for the US navy are $18k/hour for F-18E/F, and $30k/hour for F-35.

This is why we should be looking first and foremost at the requirements. The role the CF-18s carried out internationally the past decade would be better suited to something like the A-10 which had about 1/2 the cost per flight hour as F-18E/F, and 1/3 the cost per flight hour as F-35 projected.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... I don't know what Canada is spending on the CF-18, if anyone has those figures it would be interesting. The estimates I have seen for the US navy are $18k/hour for F-18E/F, and $30k/hour for F-35.

Good luck finding that out....it's usually just more regurgitation of readily available U.S. flight hour costs. For some reason in Canada, it is a big DND mystery.

This is why we should be looking first and foremost at the requirements. The role the CF-18s carried out internationally the past decade would be better suited to something like the A-10 which had about 1/2 the cost per flight hour as F-18E/F, and 1/3 the cost per flight hour as F-35 projected.

A-10 flight hour costs would increase as airframes and components age. A-10's also require more (costly) air superiority assets.

[segnosaur]

Re: Canada vs. Australia...

They spend more money than us, and have for about 5 years. They have, at the same time, fewer soldiers and bases, whilst having more equipment. Leaner - learn the definition.

Are you sure about that?

According to Wikipedia:

Army:

Canada: ~23,000 soldiers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Army)

Australia: ~28,000 soldiers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Army)

Navy:

Canada: ~8,000 soldiers (hhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Navy)

Australia: ~14,000 personnel(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Australian_Navy)

As for bases:

Canada: ~35 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Forces_base)

Australia: ~80 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_military_bases)

Now, I have no idea how big any of these bases are. (Or maybe its possible that Canada might have additional bases that just aren't counted for some reason.

[waldo]

The estimates I have seen for the US navy are $18k/hour for F-18E/F, and $30k/hour for F-35.

per USAF: 2015 cost per flight hour for F-35: $44,000 (U.S) per hour.

per US GAO: 2012 cost per flight hour for F-35: $35,000 (U.S) per hour.

per US DoD: 2012 cost per flight hour for F-35: $32,000 (U.S) per hour.

of course, LockMart has grand projections on how much that operating cost will come down based on increased production numbers!

I just found a figure of $20,000 (CAN) for the CF-18... but have no year attachment to that

.

[Argus]

IS there any reason they can't update the jets we have now and order the Hornets?

Yes. If they do so they lose their fig leaf of protection from being sued for letting out a sole source contract rather than having a competition.

That's against all kinds of rules and regulations and treaties. It also makes their multi-year tantrum over the F-35 not having gone through a competitive process look like the cynical exercise in hypocrisy it in fact was.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Argus

[Smallc]

Are you sure about that?

According to Wikipedia:

Army:

Canada: ~23,000 soldiers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Army)

Australia: ~28,000 soldiers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Army)

Navy:

Canada: ~8,000 soldiers (hhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Navy)

Australia: ~14,000 personnel(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Australian_Navy)

Active Personnel

Canada: 68,250

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Armed_Forces

Australia: 57,982

http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/15-16/2015-16_Defence_PBS_Complete.pdf

As for bases, I'm actually quite surprised by that.

[waldo]

Yes. If they do so they lose their fig leaf of protection from being sued for letting out a sole source contract rather than having a competition.

That's against all kinds of rules and regulations and treaties.

you need a new talking point... the "fig leaf" you're whining about courtesy of Harper/Kenney!

again: per your boy Harper and former Defence Minister Jason Kenney: "A line was added to contracting regulations in June and gives the federal cabinet authority to award a deal to a single company if there are urgent “operational reasons” and it fulfills an interim requirement."

.