Smallc Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 I never said they could defend against a "sweeping Russian attack" alone. Then you don't have much of a point. Are you that ignorant? The French, unlike Canada, can deploy (and support) an entire airborne brigade globally, Marines and their army anywhere in the world with a coast line and of course.......there is the Legion They can move a mechanized brigade group with tanks, by air? None the less, in the context of the "Russian threat", the French can employ two combined arms armored divisions......in Europe.....via rail........Canada not so much. Yes, Canada does have an extreme lack of European rail lines. Canada brings very little to a NATO strategy aimed at stopping several Russian tank armies..... That's why Canada was asked to lead a tripwire battalion. Nice talking to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 Simple, a sole tank squadron is the standard ORBAT of a mechanized infantry battalion, They don't have an independent tank squadron. That's what I just said. Canada, with a larger economy and defense budget can't field a near equal force. Canada has a completely different set of defense and security needs at home, the primary mission of the Canadian Forces. None the less, there's a reason that Canada is the one leading a tripwire battalion, not the Netherlands. We bring things to the table that they don't - logistics, a larger amount of armour, and a larger headquarters staff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 Then you don't have much of a point. No, you fail to understand my point. They can move a mechanized brigade group with tanks, by air? The only nation that can do that is the Americans........and barely just and not support it very long........Of course, no military would though. Yes, Canada does have an extreme lack of European rail lines. Canada doesn't have a mechanized force worth moving by rail. That's why Canada was asked to lead a tripwire battalion. Nice talking to you. Nobody else wanted the job....simple as that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 Nobody else wanted the job....simple as that. An assertion that you have yet to provide proof of. It's funny, you never had a single Complaint about the Canadian Forces until Liberals took over in Ottawa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 They don't have an independent tank squadron. That's what I just said. Yes they do......a squadron within a combined German unit. Canada has a completely different set of defense and security needs at home, the primary mission of the Canadian Forces. None the less, there's a reason that Canada is the one leading a tripwire battalion, not the Netherlands. We bring things to the table that they don't - logistics, a larger amount of armour, and a larger headquarters staff. The Trudeau Government (not the CDS) decided our defense and security needs were providing forces to joint defense through NATO in Europe....yet they can't provide anything of real substance in the advent of a shooting war with the Russians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 An assertion that you have yet to provide proof of. It's funny, you never had a single Complaint about the Canadian Forces until Liberals took over in Ottawa. There are ~5 years of complaints, in the countless topical threads, on this forum.....I, unlike you, have an understanding of a great deal of the subject mater, inversely knowing what I don't know....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 Yes they do......a squadron within a combined German unit. That means they don't. The Trudeau Government (not the CDS) decided our defense and security needs were providing forces to joint defense through NATO in Europe....yet they can't provide anything of real substance in the advent of a shooting war with the Russians. The CDS seems to disagree with your assessment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 There are ~5 years of complaints, in the countless topical threads, on this forum.....I, unlike you, have an understanding of a great deal of the subject mater So you've said. It's the internet, after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 That means they don't. No, it means they have their own squadron within a larger German unit. The CDS seems to disagree with your assessment. Has the CDS ever suggested Canada could deploy a combined arms mechanized unit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 No, it means they have their own squadron within a larger German unit. To which the Germans contribute manpower. They don't have their own squadron, just like they don't have their own Joint Support Ship. Has the CDS ever suggested Canada could deploy a combined arms mechanized unit? He saw Canada being asked after France pulled out as an opportunity. You apparently don't. Good for you. NATO seems happy to have us there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 So you've said. It's the internet, after all. Yes indeed........of course factual evidence and history align with my "internet opinion" and not your "parroted, yet ignorant, internet opinion"........As I said, the Trudeau Government is sending Canadian personal onto a deployment they are not prepared for, in the off chance, the Russians start driving West. That is my informed opinion based on the current composition of our armed forces, contrasted with the Russian forces in theater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 To which the Germans contribute manpower. They don't have their own squadron, just like they don't have their own Joint Support Ship. No, they have their own squadron within a larger German regiment or battalion. He saw Canada being asked after France pulled out as an opportunity. You apparently don't. Good for you. NATO seems happy to have us there. I would say more consigned to having us there......none the less, if pleasing NATO is the Trudeau governments intent, they had best start increasing the defense budget rapidly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 (edited) I would say more consigned to having us there. Like so many of your assertions, you have no proof. There are direct statements to the contrary. Edited July 23, 2016 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 Like so many of your assertions, you have no proof. There are direct statements to the contrary. Hey, there are direct statements urging Canada (among others) to start towing our own weight in NATO.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 Billions of Canadian tax dollars being wasted on foolish NATO wars around the world. I wish Canada were like Switzerland. Switzerland says you go ahead and fight your battles and we will sit back and just watch. Instead we are going to spend our tax dollars on more useful things that will help our own people and our country, and not help or serve the interests of the globalist bankster elites. Canadians don't start wars, but America does. Absolute rubbish. Switzerland is very well armed, with roughly the same % of GDP spent on the military as Canada. They don't have a navy, so they concentrate on air and land and have about the same number of combat aircraft as Canada with about 1/4 the population. And of course, they are far better prepared for defence than Canada since they have mandatory military service for every male citizen. Sweden spends far more per capita than Canada. Both countries are major arms exporters. Being 'neutral' does not mean being stupid and relying on other countries(like CA does with the USA) helping out by paying our defence bills. The prime responsibility of any national govt is to ensure the safety of its citizens, and our govts have failed in this task for decades. Early returns on Trudeau are that he will take this failure to new lows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 If our government was taking real responsibility for our well being it would be in the face of allies that are bent on further destabilizing the world's conflict zones. Instead we're actually with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted July 23, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 Hey, there are direct statements urging Canada (among others) to start towing our own weight in NATO.......... More than our weight. ISIS has just killed another 80 Afghans and is starting to compete with the Taliban as to suicide bomber kills. We have to throw a lot more money at our soldiers and rearm our military and go back into Afghanistan to kill those "scumbags and murderers" and allow all those little girls (that can still walk) to go to school. There are also dams we can rebuild, eradicate the heroin trade, show them how a democracy operates, repair their roads ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 If our government was taking real responsibility for our well being it would be in the face of allies that are bent on further destabilizing the world's conflict zones. Instead we're actually with them. Meanwhile, back in reality, the air campaign we abandoned to meet a stupid and ill considered campaign promise has shown clear and obvious gains: ripped the guts out of ISIS financing by stopping oil exports, reduced their offensive capacity to near zero, sharply reduced any ability to resupply themselves, provided an opportunity for Iraqi and Kurd ground forces to advance instead of retreat. Have you heard much about the ISIS blitzkrieg through Syria and Iraq lately? Do you have any curiosity at all about why that has halted and begun to head the other way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 That's true of every country, making the list valuable for comparative purposes. Starting this year, Canada will approach the NATO guideline of 20% being spent on new equipment. The money last year would have went to payments for the TAPV, the AOPS, and other ongoing projects like the LAV Up. Money for this year goes to the AOPS, TAPV, heavy trucks, LAV Up, JSS long lead, etc. That is your opinion of the chart, it does not say that this funding is going towards the projects you listed, in fact it does not say where the funding is going , One could also assume that the 2.7 is spent on regular replacement of major equipment items, which happens all the time, with the update of smaller equipment not worthy of a media event. And has I already pointed out the projects that you have listed are covered top to bottom in the media, and by our government, and yet we are all wondering what projects is this money spent on....because nothing in the media. More to that fact is most DND major projects were put on hold this year, deferred until a later date, NO major projects will be looked at until after the defense review...did the government mislead us, or was these purchases left over from the Cons period in office... Do you have a source to clear this up ? As we can see, that's true of many countries. It's unfortunate but reality. Sure it is, but does that make it right, I thought we were our own nation, part of the G-8, setting the example for some of the rest of the NATO, and western countries. I thought we walked in our own foot prints.....And yet our government and know the exact condition of our military, it's reported one a daily and weekly basis and despite knowing this condition, which is bad enough to order a defense review, and cause concern with NATO, and our allieds, very little is being done to correct the issue on any level....and one would wonder why there is so much frustration out there...not only with myself but it has been voiced in many media outlets.... No, you're wrong. The funding portion deals with the entire $21B defence budget. The personnel portion that you're referring to deals only with full time soldiers. Even pensions were included. The 60% figure comes as a result of the base budget being smaller than the overall budget (the base budget this year is $1.5B less than the overall budget). Am I wrong, do the math if you just use the 65000 troops and account for wages it comes out to roughly 40 % I don't have the figures for pensions so i'm guessing....and yet add in reserves, and civilians and civilian MNDND employees and your numbers are now over 120,000 people....or over 60% of the budget.....and yet you chart states only 45 % of the budget is spent on personal.... I'm not sure what your talking about when referring to base budgets being smaller, Is the total budget 21 bil, or not....your chart refs to 45 % of the total budget is spent on wages or personal....when I refered to the media reports done about this topic they quote 60 % of the total budget is spent on personal....some one has it wrong.....And i'm betting it is not the bean counters here in Canada, or within DND. Like I said your charts do not provide enough context , there is lots of important info missing from them to make any firm decision on how well our forces are doing....These charts are printed in NATO....the same organization that has been continuously pleading with us to spend more on defense.....and yet these charts tell a very different story....SO what is up ? The charts utterly dispute what you say, that's why. your right for the most part they do, but that's not why I am questioning them, it does not make sense for a lot of reasons I already mentioned them above, in reality or on the ground the forces are not in great shape at all, which points to several problems one we are not managing our funding properly, we are paying far to much for our procurements , for less quality, see ship building program for example, it also points to the big issue one can not compare one military with another because of the millions of different ways it actually spends it's money on it's military.... In Canada we spend more on wages than most countries, and yet they have other programs or bonuses to assist soldiers, like rent control, or free family, medi care, which allows the pay check go further....Military wages are not all that out of whack when compared other civilian jobs in Canada such as public service or public sector. The list of examples is much to large to list here, but it is apples to oranges.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 That is your opinion of the chart, it does not say that this funding is going towards the projects you listed, in fact it does not say where the funding is going , One could also assume that the 2.7 is spent on regular replacement of major equipment items, which happens all the time, with the update of smaller equipment not worthy of a media event. That doesn't make any sense. How do you think we're paying for the LAV UP, TAPV, heavy trucks, AOPS, and JSS long lead items? Of course it's spent on other things. And has I already pointed out the projects that you have listed are covered top to bottom in the media, and by our government, and yet we are all wondering what projects is this money spent on....because nothing in the media. Again, I don't know what you're talking about. More to that fact is most DND major projects were put on hold this year, That is in fact, categorically false. What happened is the same thing that happened in 2012 and 2014 - the money for the Joint Support Ship, Canadian Surface Combatant, and Fighter Replacement Project were moved forward to a time when they can be spent. We weren't able to buy those things in 2012 or 2014, and we still can't in 2016. Why? Because we're behind schedule. The shipyards aren't ready to produce those ships at this point (there will be no CSC construction until 2021 at the earliest, and no JSS construction until 2019), and the fighter replacement was delayed by the previous government. deferred until a later date, NO major projects will be looked at until after the defense review That, again, isn't true, as the fighter replacement is doing pre review preliminary work, and the FWSAR might finally get to contract stage by the end of the year....maybe. did the government mislead us, or was these purchases left over from the Cons period in office These purchases are Conservative purchases that the Liberals are now paying for, yes (other than the long lead items for the JSS) Do you have a source to clear this up ? I already provided the source. Sure it is, but does that make it right, I thought we were our own nation, part of the G-8, setting the example for some of the rest of the NATO, and western countries. I thought we walked in our own foot prints.....And yet our government and know the exact condition of our military, it's reported one a daily and weekly basis and despite knowing this condition, which is bad enough to order a defense review, and cause concern with NATO, and our allieds, very little is being done to correct the issue on any level....and one would wonder why there is so much frustration out there...not only with myself but it has been voiced in many media outlets.... Am I wrong, do the math if you just use the 65000 troops and account for wages it comes out to roughly 40 % I don't have the figures for pensions so i'm guessing....and yet add in reserves, and civilians and civilian MNDND employees and your numbers are now over 120,000 people....or over 60% of the budget.....and yet you chart states only 45 % of the budget is spent on personal.... It would help if you guys would actually read the chart. The personnel number is for active regular personnel only (Canada, btw, is one of only a few countries with a larger force than in 2009 - NATO is down almost 400K regular troops). The costing chart says at the bottom: (a) Equipment expenditures include major equipment expenditures and R&D devoted to major equipment. ( Personnel expenditures include military and civilian expenditures and pensions. I'm not sure what your talking about when referring to base budgets being smaller, Is the total budget 21 bil, or not....your chart refs to 45 % of the total budget is spent on wages or personal....when I refered to the media reports done about this topic they quote 60 % of the total budget is spent on personal....some one has it wrong.....And i'm betting it is not the bean counters here in Canada, or within DND. This year, the base budget of DND is ~$18.5B CAD. The total budget is ~$20.3B CAD including operations and extra money for infrastructure. NATO is referring to the total budget. The media is using the base budget. Like I said your charts do not provide enough context , there is lots of important info missing from them to make any firm decision on how well our forces are doing....These charts are printed in NATO....the same organization that has been continuously pleading with us to spend more on defense.....and yet these charts tell a very different story....SO what is up ? Again, you have to actually read the chart. NATO wants us to do two things - spend 2% of GDP on defence and spend 20% of that 2% on equipment. We are doing neither of those things (~1% and ~18%), although we are getting close on the new equipment, and would be there if we were able to buy all of our ships and planes that we were supposed to be buying right now. your right for the most part they do, but that's not why I am questioning them, it does not make sense for a lot of reasons I already mentioned them above, in reality or on the ground the forces are not in great shape at all, which points to several problems one we are not managing our funding properly, we are paying far to much for our procurements , for less quality, see ship building program for example, it also points to the big issue one can not compare one military with another because of the millions of different ways it actually spends it's money on it's military.... Based on the charts, this problem is pervasive in NATO. I'm not saying things are perfect, just that comparatively, they're not that bad. In Canada we spend more on wages than most countries, and yet they have other programs or bonuses to assist soldiers, like rent control, or free family, medi care, which allows the pay check go further....Military wages are not all that out of whack when compared other civilian jobs in Canada such as public service or public sector. Sure, but in comparison to most NATO countries, we're about mid pack on personnel costs. We pay each solider more than most, but the global number isn't that bad, now being ~45%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 So looking at the budget chart, about 30% of that ~$2.7B that the Canadian Forces spent was on the large projects I was referring to. The rest would have been small acquisitions, as you pointed out Army Guy, which means that there was a lot of them. This year, about 30% of the $4B is for large projects. That increase would make sense, as there are more payments for things like the heavy trucks that start this year. Even with the change to the budget, the large project budget will increase every year until 2022, when it will reach a peak of ~$3.3B. As the budget document states: Budget 2016 proposes to reallocate funding of $3.716 billion for large-scale capital projects from the 2015–16 to 2020–21 period to future years. This is not a reduction in National Defence’s budget. This will ensure that funding is available for large-scale capital projects when it is needed. Funding is being shifted into future years to align with the current timing of National Defence’s major equipment acquisitions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 (edited) Have you heard much about the ISIS blitzkrieg through Syria and Iraq lately? Do you have any curiosity at all about why that has halted and begun to head the other way?Not as much as I have about what will rise from the ashes of ISIS...which arose from the ashes of the last conflagration - now much thought do you give to that? Rinse and repeat as they say. Edited July 23, 2016 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 That doesn't make any sense. How do you think we're paying for the LAV UP, TAPV, heavy trucks, AOPS, and JSS long lead items? Of course it's spent on other things. It makes sense if you account for all the regular equipment DND buys on a yearly basis, which 2.7 bil is really not a big number when you account for the regular purchased equipment such field equipment,regular veh replacements such as civilian fleet, training area maintence fleets, snow removal etc.....all of which is included in equipment purchases.....which means very little of your 2.7 bil dollars is actually going towards future projects....such as AOPS, JSS....and your examples of LAV UP a bil upgrade was announce in 2009, along with TPAV and a 750 mil project announced also in 2009, should have already been paid off....Your new trucks was announced in 2015 and are only worth 843 mil....and may of been added to your over all numbers....and this rate we could see a slight difference in another 20 years or so.... But the orginal project to replace over 10,000 vehs has been canceled, instead DND is told to make do with 1500 new trucks, but the army has yet to been told on the status of the other vehs already in scrap yards......which dos nothing to solve the issue of the LSVW, MLVW, OR HLVW FLEETS... below is the Defense acquisition for 2015. as you can see very little is mention in MAJOR equipment purchases...or new intiatives....with exception of perhaps the new FSWAR contract to be announced later....your 2.7 bil won't last very long with these types of every year purchases that consume most of your planned budget for new equipment , meaning very little is ongoing right now in the terms of correcting DND sever MAJOR equipment shortfalls .... http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-defence-acquisition-guide-2015/index.page That, again, isn't true, as the fighter replacement is doing pre review preliminary work, and the FWSAR might finally get to contract stage by the end of the year....maybe. Projects were deferred by the Harper government in 2014, pushed back until 2016, and are still sitting on someone desk now years behind schedule....I give kudos to the liberal government for pushing the F-18 project along, but it really need to sit down and look at all the projects new and old, and come up with a plan and make it public.....that has not been done.... http://www.cgai.ca/defence_budget_2015 It will, however, leave DND with a sizeable fiscal hole that requires an adjustment to the current defence plan. As a result, the next government will need to revise the current defence plan, either by increasing funding in the short term or downgrading its expectations for the military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 It makes sense if you account for all the regular equipment DND buys on a yearly basis, which 2.7 bil is really not a big number when you account for the regular purchased equipment such field equipment,regular veh replacements such as civilian fleet, training area maintence fleets, snow removal etc.....all of which is included in equipment purchases Which is true of every country on the list - I don't see why this is hard. .....which means very little of your 2.7 bil dollars is actually going towards future projects[/b About 1/3 of it this year - and it's not future projects, but current. ....such as AOPS, JSS....and your examples of LAV UP a bil upgrade was announce in 2009, along with TPAV and a 750 mil project announced also in 2009, should have already been paid off....Your new trucks was announced in 2015 and are only worth 843 mil....and may of been added to your over all numbers....and this rate we could see a slight difference in another 20 years or so.... You don't say, "here you go, here's some money - now delver the goods." There are payment schedules based on project milestones. There are still milestones for example, to be reached on the CH-147 and CH-148 that will trigger payments yet to be made. The same is true of the LAV UP, the TAPV, and the trucks. There is money that flows at different points between project award and project closeout. But the orginal project to replace over 10,000 vehs has been canceled, instead DND is told to make do with 1500 new trucks, This project didn't exist, as far as I can tell. Each vehicle set is replaced on its own. but the army has yet to been told on the status of the other vehs already in scrap yards......which dos nothing to solve the issue of the LSVW, MLVW, OR HLVW FLEETS... There are not enough project managers to keep up with the money that's already being spent. That's why so much of it is returned. below is the Defense acquisition for 2015. as you can see very little is mention in MAJOR equipment purchases...or new intiatives....with exception of perhaps the new FSWAR contract to be announced later....your 2.7 bil won't last very long with these types of every year purchases that consume most of your planned budget for new equipment , meaning very little is ongoing right now in the terms of correcting DND sever MAJOR equipment shortfalls .... Again, this is true of every country. The chart is useful for comparative purposes. Projects were deferred by the Harper government in 2014, pushed back until 2016, and are still sitting on someone desk now years behind schedule....I give kudos to the liberal government for pushing the F-18 project along, but it really need to sit down and look at all the projects new and old, and come up with a plan and make it public.....that has not been done.... Why would you make a plan public before its finished? The defence review won't be complete until the end of the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxme Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 Absolute rubbish. Switzerland is very well armed, with roughly the same % of GDP spent on the military as Canada. They don't have a navy, so they concentrate on air and land and have about the same number of combat aircraft as Canada with about 1/4 the population. And of course, they are far better prepared for defence than Canada since they have mandatory military service for every male citizen. Sweden spends far more per capita than Canada. Both countries are major arms exporters. Being 'neutral' does not mean being stupid and relying on other countries(like CA does with the USA) helping out by paying our defence bills. The prime responsibility of any national govt is to ensure the safety of its citizens, and our govts have failed in this task for decades. Early returns on Trudeau are that he will take this failure to new lows. Switzerland does not send their military personal off to fight in other countries wars. Canada has done that many times. Switzerland military stay home. The prime responsibility of our Canadian military is to protect our borders from attack, and that is all they should be doing. Canada should not be running off to join the army of another country that has a dispute with that country. If all countries took that attitude and stayed home then the racket of war would cease to exist. Maybe then all countries would decide that we all should just eliminate their military, and finally the world would have peace at least. Just my opinion of course. Works for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.