Canadian Defence News

[John Johnston]

2 hours ago, John Stone said:

..................... arguably, Trump would prefer to be described as 'strong man' ........ a guy who doesn't bluff?😅

bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

 

Hahaha. No kidding. 

[CdnFox]

18 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Oh he said “barrels” of gasoline, not cans. Wow that’s a big difference

Explain how barrels of “gasoline” or “petroleum” (natural gas is not petroleum either) help produce extra power for the grid when all your power plants are fed natural by pipe and running at full power?  Do you think putting extra cand of gas in the trunk of your car make the car go faster?

 

Battery storage is a teal thing this is used all over the world and allows you to use existing power generators to produce electricity when it’s cheap and save it for later when it’s needed amd all your generators are already in use or when it would be more expensive to use them. Storing “barrels of gasoline” or “petroleum” is not a thing for grid-connected power generation and doesn’t solve any existing problems, it’s just gibberish he made up and you defended  

 

the quote:

 

Did you think the gasoline storage is some form of electrical generation on its own? Those are the two things being compared. The storage of energy. 

Again, because apparently you're having trouble with basic English, when electrical storage is as efficient and cost-effective as petroleum energy storage

 

 

LOL what a lying sack of shit you are   

As i CORRECTLY pointed out at the time,  battery storage is massively expensive and requires a huge land space for the same amount of power you can get from gasoline. 

Which is why i CORRECTLY pointed out that until it's as cheap and easy to store electricity from solar (or wind)  as it is to store gasoline or oil then solar will never work as a primary power source  

And that's ABSOLUTELY true, and i gave you the links and the math.  A "container" that stores 100 kw of electricity in the form of a battery would be ten times the cost and the size of a container with enough oil or gas (LNG whatever) to create the same amount of electricity. 

That's absolutely true.  And you fought against that like a complete ****** before eventually breaking down into tears and running off. 

 

Statement was correct then, the statement is correct now.  It is necessary as part of having enough electricity for our needs to be able to store the energy and use it as needed. Batteries are insanely expensive and hold a very small amount of energy for their size. Oil storage tanks are cheap and hold a tremendous amount of electrical potential energy for their size. And that is why solar and wind power cannot and will not be able to replace oil gas and nuclear as primary power sources

 

And you look like a complete twat trying to argue against that before and I can't believe it would be stupid enough to bring it up again and relive looking like a twat the second time

[BeaverFever]

Minister McGuinty announces $816 million investment to strengthen Canada’s maritime security
 

 

May 22, 2026 – Iqaluit, Nunavut – National Defence / Canadian Coast Guard

Today, the Honourable David J. McGuinty, Minister of National Defence, announced a foundational investment of $816 million over seven years to strengthen maritime security and expand the Canadian Coast Guard’s role in monitoring Canada’s waters.

Key projects that will strengthen the Canadian Coast Guard’s Arctic maritime domain awareness and federal visibility include:

• creation of a year-round Maritime Domain Awareness Hub in Iqaluit, Nunavut, for collecting and analyzing maritime intelligence;
• addition of reconnaissance equipment to helicopters operating across the country, including in the Arctic, to support security patrols;
• establishment of four new Arctic long‑range marine radar sites at strategic points along the Northwest Passage and the Hudson Strait; and
• acquisition of short- and medium-range endurance aerial, surface and subsurface drones to extend the reach of the Canadian Coast Guard from land or sea.

As a key federal presence in the North, the Canadian Coast Guard plays a vital role in Canada’s maritime security system, working alongside federal and Indigenous partners. The Strengthening Canada’s Immigration Systems and Borders Act gives the Canadian Coast Guard a new security mandate, with authority to conduct security patrols and collect, analyze, and disclose information and intelligence to security and enforcement partners. This authority allows valuable information collected by the Canadian Coast Guard to be leveraged to detect and respond to threats in Canadian waters.

This change is particularly significant in the Arctic, a region that is rapidly evolving with growing global interests, increased vessel traffic, and complex security risks. Investing in more capabilities and tools better prepares Canada to respond to emergent security threats and assert our sovereignty.

Strong partnerships with Inuit across Inuit Nunangat remain a priority for the Canadian Coast Guard in alignment with these new investments. Combined with new capabilities and reinforced relationships, these investments will improve real‑time situational awareness, reinforce year‑round operations in the North, and support the protection and sovereignty of Canada’s northern waters.

Canada must be able to see and respond to all activities in its waters. With its fleet and operational expertise, the Canadian Coast Guard is well-positioned to advance national maritime security priorities across the country, and in collaboration with the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Armed Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canada Border Services Agency and other security partners.

Quotes

“Canada has the world’s longest coastline, 70% of which is in the Arctic. Maritime security is fundamental to our national security. Strengthening our presence in northern waters will allow the Canadian Coast Guard to better monitor the North Atlantic and Arctic. Working alongside federal and Indigenous partners will enhance our ability to assert sovereignty, strengthen security, and ensure marine safety while remaining a modern, resilient force for decades to come.”

The Honorable David J. McGuinty, Minister of National Defence

https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-coast-guard/news/2026/05/minister-mcguinty-announces-816-million-investment-to-strengthen-canadas-maritime-security.html

[BeaverFever]

4 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 

Minister McGuinty announces $816 million investment to strengthen Canada’s maritime security
 

 

 

May 22, 2026 – Iqaluit, Nunavut – National Defence / Canadian Coast Guard

Today, the Honourable David J. McGuinty, Minister of National Defence, announced a foundational investment of $816 million over seven years to strengthen maritime security and expand the Canadian Coast Guard’s role in monitoring Canada’s waters.

Key projects that will strengthen the Canadian Coast Guard’s Arctic maritime domain awareness and federal visibility include:

• creation of a year-round Maritime Domain Awareness Hub in Iqaluit, Nunavut, for collecting and analyzing maritime intelligence;
• addition of reconnaissance equipment to helicopters operating across the country, including in the Arctic, to support security patrols;
• establishment of four new Arctic long‑range marine radar sites at strategic points along the Northwest Passage and the Hudson Strait; and
• acquisition of short- and medium-range endurance aerial, surface and subsurface drones to extend the reach of the Canadian Coast Guard from land or sea.

As a key federal presence in the North, the Canadian Coast Guard plays a vital role in Canada’s maritime security system, working alongside federal and Indigenous partners. The Strengthening Canada’s Immigration Systems and Borders Act gives the Canadian Coast Guard a new security mandate, with authority to conduct security patrols and collect, analyze, and disclose information and intelligence to security and enforcement partners. This authority allows valuable information collected by the Canadian Coast Guard to be leveraged to detect and respond to threats in Canadian waters.

This change is particularly significant in the Arctic, a region that is rapidly evolving with growing global interests, increased vessel traffic, and complex security risks. Investing in more capabilities and tools better prepares Canada to respond to emergent security threats and assert our sovereignty.

Strong partnerships with Inuit across Inuit Nunangat remain a priority for the Canadian Coast Guard in alignment with these new investments. Combined with new capabilities and reinforced relationships, these investments will improve real‑time situational awareness, reinforce year‑round operations in the North, and support the protection and sovereignty of Canada’s northern waters.

Canada must be able to see and respond to all activities in its waters. With its fleet and operational expertise, the Canadian Coast Guard is well-positioned to advance national maritime security priorities across the country, and in collaboration with the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Armed Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canada Border Services Agency and other security partners.

Quotes

“Canada has the world’s longest coastline, 70% of which is in the Arctic. Maritime security is fundamental to our national security. Strengthening our presence in northern waters will allow the Canadian Coast Guard to better monitor the North Atlantic and Arctic. Working alongside federal and Indigenous partners will enhance our ability to assert sovereignty, strengthen security, and ensure marine safety while remaining a modern, resilient force for decades to come.”

The Honorable David J. McGuinty, Minister of National Defence

https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-coast-guard/news/2026/05/minister-mcguinty-announces-816-million-investment-to-strengthen-canadas-maritime-security.html

Conservative and MAGA dipshits say: “Doesn’t count because Something something I will think of an excuse later! Delete memory! Delete memory! He’s done nothing! He’s done nothing! NOTHINGGGGGG!  Aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!”

Edited May 22 by BeaverFever

[SpankyMcFarland]

5 hours ago, User said:

Ah yes… the classic stupid argument, we just have to live with the terrorism because if we kill the terrorists there will be more terrorist. 
 

In terms of tackling terrorism, the record is clear: we have had to manage it as a chronic problem. Simplistic solutions are often counter-productive. If one has to escalate to invading another country, Americans have learned the hard way that, even with the best intentions, foreign armies tend to end up being seen as occupiers. The wisest strategy is to avoid such entanglements as much as possible and get out as soon as possible. 
 

Edited May 22 by SpankyMcFarland

[CdnFox]

34 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 

Minister McGuinty announces $816 million investment to strengthen Canada’s maritime security
 

 

 

May 22, 2026 – Iqaluit, Nunavut – National Defence / Canadian Coast Guard

Today, the Honourable David J. McGuinty, Minister of National Defence, announced a foundational investment of $816 million over seven years to strengthen maritime security and expand the Canadian Coast Guard’s role in monitoring Canada’s waters.

Key projects that will strengthen the Canadian Coast Guard’s Arctic maritime domain awareness and federal visibility include:

• creation of a year-round Maritime Domain Awareness Hub in Iqaluit, Nunavut, for collecting and analyzing maritime intelligence;
• addition of reconnaissance equipment to helicopters operating across the country, including in the Arctic, to support security patrols;
• establishment of four new Arctic long‑range marine radar sites at strategic points along the Northwest Passage and the Hudson Strait; and
• acquisition of short- and medium-range endurance aerial, surface and subsurface drones to extend the reach of the Canadian Coast Guard from land or sea.

As a key federal presence in the North, the Canadian Coast Guard plays a vital role in Canada’s maritime security system, working alongside federal and Indigenous partners. The Strengthening Canada’s Immigration Systems and Borders Act gives the Canadian Coast Guard a new security mandate, with authority to conduct security patrols and collect, analyze, and disclose information and intelligence to security and enforcement partners. This authority allows valuable information collected by the Canadian Coast Guard to be leveraged to detect and respond to threats in Canadian waters.

This change is particularly significant in the Arctic, a region that is rapidly evolving with growing global interests, increased vessel traffic, and complex security risks. Investing in more capabilities and tools better prepares Canada to respond to emergent security threats and assert our sovereignty.

Strong partnerships with Inuit across Inuit Nunangat remain a priority for the Canadian Coast Guard in alignment with these new investments. Combined with new capabilities and reinforced relationships, these investments will improve real‑time situational awareness, reinforce year‑round operations in the North, and support the protection and sovereignty of Canada’s northern waters.

Canada must be able to see and respond to all activities in its waters. With its fleet and operational expertise, the Canadian Coast Guard is well-positioned to advance national maritime security priorities across the country, and in collaboration with the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Armed Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canada Border Services Agency and other security partners.

Quotes

“Canada has the world’s longest coastline, 70% of which is in the Arctic. Maritime security is fundamental to our national security. Strengthening our presence in northern waters will allow the Canadian Coast Guard to better monitor the North Atlantic and Arctic. Working alongside federal and Indigenous partners will enhance our ability to assert sovereignty, strengthen security, and ensure marine safety while remaining a modern, resilient force for decades to come.”

The Honorable David J. McGuinty, Minister of National Defence

https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-coast-guard/news/2026/05/minister-mcguinty-announces-816-million-investment-to-strengthen-canadas-maritime-security.html

Yeah great, but that's not military spending. the coast guard is an important patrol/rescue force for sure but it's more about policing than fending off an invasion. 

And you're talking about an average of 116 million a year.  I mean, great, the coast guard probably needed that.  But it's a small amount and it's not military spending.  It'll go under the defense budget but nobody would say that's going to keep canada safer from invasion than it was, that's just upgrading stuff it already uses. 

[BeaverFever]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Were you reading your own words there? You sure are mad when i repeat what you say back at you

I said nothing of the sort in fact I said some decent things about the LAV which I actually like. It’s just not objectively “best in the world” . Provide the quote where I said they were “crappy” or “shit” or admit you’re a disgusting shameless liar. Since you can’t provide the quote the admission is basically already made.

Look we all know you internet conservatives STRUGGLE with critical thinking and nuance low-IQ types like you only deal with extremes if it’s not “best in the world “ it must then be “shit” and you can’t mentally grasp the concept of a spectrum or alternatives or something is great for some purposes but not for others. Just like you can’t grasp the concept that SOME defence spending is new and SOME is reallocated, or that someone who disagrees with you might be a moderate with good intentions instead of a EVIL COMMUNIST MARXIST. As they say in star wars “only a sith deals in absolutes”

 

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

We gave away about a third and our guys still don't have even half of what they were supposed to. 

obviously if we didn’t give away those 50 vehicles we would have 50 more in service than we have now. I haven’t seen anything that says the Army has suffered from that in the short term, it’s not like they have zero vehicles . the entire army doesn’t sit in high readiness posture 100% of the time you know, units rotate from high to low they don’t all need to be equipped at once. Plus, the army gets to see these vehicles perform in an ACTUAL combat theatre and learn lessons from Ukraine. 

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

the Americans are looking at this and they're saying we're not taking this seriously…

The Trump administration is a pack of trolls they made it clear that their motive is payback for the DAVOS speech   It’s hilarious how you continue to pretend Trump admin are principled, rational honest people with values and morals.  

As already explained Per NATO COast guard and donations to Ukraine and other NATO members are legitimate expenses. The “trees” are part of legitimate housing construction and base maintenance expenditures. It was not $2 billion dollars as you completely made up. 

[BeaverFever]

21 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah great, but that's not military spending.

It is defence spending that counts to the NATO target. NATO says so explicitly.   End of story  

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

This is a worrying story:

Quote

US arms sales to Taiwan have been “paused” to ensure the US military has enough munitions for its Iran operations, according to Washington’s acting navy secretary, in the latest blow to Taipei after a series of comments by Donald Trump.

When asked at a congressional hearing on Thursday about a $14bn (£10.4bn) weapons package awaiting Trump’s signoff for months, Hung Cao said: “Right now we’re doing a pause in order to make sure we have the munitions we need for Epic Fury [the Iran war] – which we have plenty.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/may/22/us-arms-sales-taiwan-pause-iran-war-says-acting-navy-chief

If part of the truth, it raises the question how ready America is to defend Taiwan when engaged in a war elsewhere.

Quote

Concerns are growing over reports that the US has significantly depleted its missile stockpiles since launching its increasingly intractable war against Iran on 28 February, which has since settled into a fragile ceasefire.

 

Of course, the other issue is whether this is part of a weakening of the defence of Taiwan under pressure from Xi. Mitch McConnell got a little barb in here:

Quote

When the US senator Mitch McConnell asked whether he expected the arms sales to Taiwan to be approved eventually, Cao said the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth, the Pentagon chief, would make that decision. “Yeah, that’s what’s really distressing,” McConnell said.

 

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

I said nothing of the sort

Yeah I would try and rewrite what I said to if I were you. It was pretty stupid 

Quote

It’s just not objectively “best in the world” .

Nobody said it was. Once again you try and rewrite what was said to recover an argument that you've already lost.

9 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Look we all know you internet conservatives STRUGGLE with critical thinking and nuance

By we all I assume you mean the other voices in your head. You're already failing at critical thinking and nuance in this very thread. In fact you're failing with basic facts and simple logic.

10 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

obviously if we didn’t give away those 50 vehicles we would have 50 more in service than we have now

Wow, only took you three tries to get there.   I know, math is hard. 

And the point is we don't have those 50 but we claim it as military spending for our military. It isn't, it's foreign aid. And it is these things and others like them that the Americans look at and shake their head and say we're not actually serious about military spending.

It's not that complicated

11 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

The Trump administration is a pack of trolls they made it clear that their motive is payback for the DAVOS speech

They've been going on about military spending since the first time trump was elected. You can't pretend that it's some fake thing he doesn't really care about.

What he's saying loud and clear is that canada has always been seen as an ally and now they don't as much. They don't think we spend enough, they don't appreciate how canada says we should be forming a coalition to fight them which is essentially what he said in Davos and he's pissed off.

But there's no doubt that they don't believe we've made any kind of serious commitment to military spending and preparedness and that has been an irritant for ages

You can try and play it off but it's quite obvious but the Americans are recognizing what everyone should see is a simple fact. We are not spending money on actual military preparedness and Improvement.

 

And just to hammer that home .... 

Canada military news: CAF members asked to return gear

We don't have enough BASIC FRIKKIN GEAR to outfit our military.  The people not actually deployed have to give theirs back so we can get by.

Are you going to tell me that's another thing it takes 10 years to research and buy? Rucksacks and backpacks? Thank god we have a shortage of soldiers, we wouldn't be able to outfit them if we had a full team it would seem. 

 

[User]

20 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Oh he said “barrels” of gasoline, not cans. Wow that’s a big difference

You said LITERALLY and put it in quotes and everything... 

Like I said, you cowardly run away from these discussions and then drag it back up lying about what was said and what the argument was about. 

20 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Explain how barrels of “gasoline” or “petroleum” (natural gas is not petroleum either) help produce extra power for the grid when all your power plants are fed natural by pipe and running at full power?  Do you think putting extra cand of gas in the trunk of your car make the car go faster?

I don't have to explain anything. This is your stupid convoluted attempt to drag up an argument you ran like a coward from. You give me the exact quotes you want to rehash, and then your argument about them. One to one. 

In the meantime, since you drug it back up, you still gonna be a coward and ignore the last comment of mine to you from that discussion? Coward.

20 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Battery storage is a teal thing this is used all over the world and allows you to use existing power generators to produce electricity when it’s cheap and save it for later when it’s needed amd all your generators are already in use or when it would be more expensive to use them. Storing “barrels of gasoline” or “petroleum” is not a thing for grid-connected power generation and doesn’t solve any existing problems, it’s just gibberish he made up and you defended  

Show me where I defended this? You can't.
 

20 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Did you think the gasoline storage is some form of electrical generation on its own? Those are the two things being compared. The storage of energy. 

Again, because apparently you're having trouble with basic English, when electrical storage is as efficient and cost-effective as petroleum energy storage

What about it?
 
 

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

It is defence spending that counts to the NATO target. NATO says so explicitly.   End of story  

 

Absolutely lie. Other countries including the Americans will see if we are trying to skirt the rules and bend the terms in order to make it look like we're complying when we're not. And the Americans just fired a shot across our bow for that very reason and there's nothing we can say to argue.

What matters is if our military preparedness is going up and were able to fulfill our roles in NATO. And right now it doesn't seem that anyone has faith that we will

[User]

25 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

If part of the truth, it raises the question how ready America is to defend Taiwan when engaged in a war elsewhere.

But if we defend Taiwan against the Chinese, it will only create more Chinese aggression! 

Something like that... 

[User]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

In terms of tackling terrorism, the record is clear: we have had to manage it as a chronic problem. Simplistic solutions are often counter-productive. If one has to escalate to invading another country, Americans have learned the hard way that, even with the best intentions, foreign armies tend to end up being seen as occupiers. The wisest strategy is to avoid such entanglements as much as possible and get out as soon as possible. 
 

No, the record is not clear at all regarding your position here. 

Yes, for all of human history, the concept of terrorism exists and has throughout modern history as well... just as ANY human condition does. Simplistic solutions are not wrong just because they are simple. 

We did not invade Iran. 

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Absolutely lie. Other countries including the Americans will see if we are trying to skirt the rules and bend the terms in order to make it look like we're complying when we're not. And the Americans just fired a shot across our bow for that very reason and there's nothing we can say to argue.

What matters is if our military preparedness is going up and were able to fulfill our roles in NATO. And right now it doesn't seem that anyone has faith that we will

NATO countries came up with the 2% 3.5% and 1.5% rules and also what does and doesn’t count towards it. It specifically and explores says Coast Guard counts. Period.  So you claiming otherwise is the lie. Period. 

 You don’t know wtf you are talking about. 
 

The Trump admin has been attacking Canada since they took office because they are malignant trolls not because they are moral people taking a principled stance 

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, User said:

You said LITERALLY and put it in quotes and everything... 

Like I said, you cowardly run away from these discussions and then drag it back up lying about what was said and what the argument was about. 

Barrels of gasoline is equally ridiculous as cans of gasoline, is it not?

2 hours ago, User said:

I don't have to explain anything.

Because you can’t. 
 

2 hours ago, User said:

n the meantime, since you drug it back up, you still gonna be a coward and ignore the last comment of mine to you from that discussion? Coward.

Your last comment on that thread is pure nonsense and an example of how you butted in to defend his ridiculous claims.   You attempted to justify his “barrels of gasoline” by saying that gas power plants have “underground caverns” where they store gas for peak demand for some ridiculous reason. You tried to ridicule the fact that grid gas plants are fed by pipeline not by stores gas regardless of whether they are generating during peak demand or low demand  The gas flows the plant like the water that flows to your faucet.  It’s controlled by a valve   There’s aren’t extra power turbines connected to gas in mysterious “underground caverns”  

Therefore fox’s fictional “barrels of gasoline” and your fictional “underground caverns” don’t exist and don’t provide a substitute for grid scale batteries which actually DO exist and are in use all over the world  

 

2 hours ago, User said:

Show me where I defended this? You can't.

“Underground caverns”

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, User said:

What about it?

That’s his gibberish showing he fundamentally doesn’t understand the subject. 

[User]

4 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Barrels of gasoline is equally ridiculous as cans of gasoline, is it not?

Context. What exactly was said and where?

In this case, your absurdly bringing back up a discussion you cowardly ran away from and then literally saying it was cans of gasoline was ridiculous. 

You want to play this dumb game, go back in time and play it. 

6 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Because you can’t. 

Can't what? This is your stupid argument. 

6 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Your last comment on that thread is pure nonsense and an example of how you butted in to defend his ridiculous claims.   You attempted to justify his “barrels of gasoline” by saying that gas power plants have “underground caverns” where they store gas for peak demand for some ridiculous reason. You tried to ridicule the fact that grid gas plants are fed by pipeline not by stores gas regardless of whether they are generating during peak demand or low demand  The gas flows the plant like the water that flows to your faucet.  It’s controlled by a valve   There’s aren’t extra power turbines connected to gas in mysterious “underground caverns”  

What was pure nonsense? Lets see you respond to what was said and articulate an actual argument. 

Gas power plants do in fact store gas in underground caverns... holy shit man, this is exactly why I called you out for being the ignorant person you are. Here you go:

Securing energy supply

Underground storage ensures both security of supply and flexibility in gas flows. Thanks to adapted geological structures, gas can be stored in sufficient volumes to cover winter heating demand or to withstand major supply disruptions.

Particularly well-endowed in suitable natural reservoirs, France benefits from a storage network capable of covering two-thirds of the country’s annual gas consumption. Storengy, an ENGIE subsidiary, is one of the world’s leading underground gas storage operators, with assets in France, Germany and the United Kingdom.

https://www.engie.com/en/our-activities/infrastructures/gas-storage/

 

Depleted Oil and/or Gas Fields: These reservoirs are naturally occurring, and their potential as secure containers has been proven over the millions of years that the reservoirs held its original deposits of oil and gas. They consist of porous and permeable underground formations (average of 1,000 to 5,000 feet deep) which are confined by impermeable rock or water barriers and identified by a single natural pressure. The working gas requirement is generally about 50% of the total reservoir capacity. Gas is withdrawn in winter season and injected in summer. This type of storage facility can be used for long system supply or peak day.

Aquifer Storage Fields: This type reservoir is bounded partly or completely by water bearing rocks called "Aquifers." The nature of the water in the aquifer may vary from fresh water to nearly saturated brines. They have a high cushion gas requirement, between 50 to 80% generally. They also have high deliverability rates and gas is withdrawn in winter season and injected in summer season.

Salt Cavern Storage: This type of facility uses caverns solution mined in underground salt deposits (Salt domes or Salt formations). Salt caverns usually operate with about 20 to 30 % cushion gas and the remaining capacity as working gas. Working gas can be recycled more than once per year. Salt cavern storage has high deliverability and injection capabilities and is used for short peak day deliverability purpose.

https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/overview/natural-gas-storage/natural-gas-storage-storage-fields

13 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

“Underground caverns”

I await your response. Lets see if maybe for once, you can admit you were ignorant and wrong. 

11 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

That’s his gibberish showing he fundamentally doesn’t understand the subject. 

How is that?

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah I would try and rewrite what I said to if I were you. It was pretty stupid 

No what I said was accurate and you’re a disgusting little liar who lied about what I said. Provide the rxact quote and explain what’s wrong with it. You can’t and you won’t because you know you’re a shameless POS liar and you don’t even know what you’re talking about on this topic.
 

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Nobody said it was. Once again you try and rewrite what was said to recover an argument that you've already lost.

LMAO what argument did I lose? YOU said it was “the best” and I said not necessarily and then you lied and said I called them shit. YOU are such a POS liar you should be ashamed.  Meanwhile you’re triggered because I mocked you for saying “cans of gasoline” when you actually said barrels of gasoline as if that’s different. 
 

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And the point is we don't have those 50 but we claim it as military spending for our military. It isn't, it's foreign aid. And it is these things and others like them that the Americans look at and shake their head and say we're not actually serious about military spending.

It's not that complicated

Donations to Ukraine count as per the NATO agreement. Trump likes that because Trump set up the PURL aid program where we all have to biy Ukraine American made weapons he and browbeat everyone to donate to it.  The Americans didn’t say a word about that. The Trump admin goons are just trolling us. 
 

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

They've been going on about military spending since the first time trump was elected. You can't pretend that it's some fake thing he doesn't really care about.

What he's saying loud and clear is that canada has always been seen as an ally and now they don't as much. They don't think we spend enough, they don't appreciate how canada says we should be forming a coalition to fight them which is essentially what he said in Davos and he's pissed off.

But there's no doubt that they don't believe we've made any kind of serious commitment to military spending and preparedness and that has been an irritant for ages

You can try and play it off but it's quite obvious but the Americans are recognizing what everyone should see is a simple fact. We are not spending money on actual military preparedness and Improvement.

Every American president has been saying that for decades and they’re not wrong but Trump goons are doing this now because they’re trolling us. The time to pull something like this would have been BEFORE Carney opened the floodgates for new defence spending, not afterwards  

They are doing this for the same reason they’re delaying the Gordie Howe bridge and making up lies about Fentanyl and calling our PM Governor and demanding that we pre-agree to their trade concession demands before actually starting trade negotiations  They are scumbags and trolls, plain and simple  

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And just to hammer that home .... 

Canada military news: CAF members asked to return gear

We don't have enough BASIC FRIKKIN GEAR to outfit our military.  The people not actually deployed have to give theirs back so we can get by.

Are you going to tell me that's another thing it takes 10 years to research and buy? Rucksacks and backpacks? Thank god we have a shortage of soldiers, we wouldn't be able to outfit them if we had a full team it would seem. 

If you are assigned to a desk job in Ottawa it seems common sense that you don’t need body armour. I am surprised that wouldn’t already be a requirement to turn it in  Anyway, the decades of underfunding are well-known we will be digging our way out for a little time there’s no magic button to simply undo it, these things take time you can’t just snap your fingers and refill stores that have been empty and understaffed for decades  These things are made by private for profit companies that have other products for other clients they have their order books, they haven’t just been making extra military kit and storing it this whole time 

 

[CdnFox]

50 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

NATO countries came up with the 2% 3.5% and 1.5% rules

That doesn't mean that they or the us forgives canada for being so far behind all these years and doesn't expect them to spend money FIRST on military improvements. 

Sorry to burst your bubble.  

Like i said it's been a year and what have we actually bought? Our guys hare having to turn in their backpacks because there's not enough to go around. Do we really need to spend 5 years buying backpacks? We can't do that faster?  Carney hired his banker buddies at a million a year plus benefits just to make sure procurement was faster than ever before. 

3 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

They are doing this for the same reason they’re delaying the Gordie Howe bridge and making up lies about Fentanyl and calling our PM Governor

They are delaying the Gordie Howe Bridge because a competing bridge paid trump a lot of money. Fentanyl and calling our PM governor is about trade deals. But this does appear to be about military spending. They're pushing Carney to make decisions about fighter planes and actually buy submarines and other equipment so the candidates preparedness is actually a real thing.

Of course they'd like a significant amount of that gear to beat American, that goes without saying, but this isn't just pressuring people for the fun of it.

Americans and the world are looking at Carney's so-called military spending and coming to the conclusion that it's not very military. Our military is not actually substantially better off to Dave than it was a year ago after he got elected. Despite him swearing that procurement would happen faster than any time in Canadian history

That's just the way it is. Say what you like but we really can't defend our position very well at the moment.

[BeaverFever]

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

obviously if we didn’t give away those 50 vehicles we would have 50 more in service than we have now. I haven’t seen anything that says the Army has suffered from that in the short term, it’s not like they have zero vehicles . the entire army doesn’t sit in high readiness posture 100% of the time you know, units rotate from high to low they don’t all need to be equipped at once. Plus, the army gets to see these vehicles perform in an ACTUAL combat theatre and learn lessons from Ukraine. 

@CdnFox

Oh and looky Canada’s top public defence analysts has to say on his blog, confirming everything I said  

 

Q14. How many ACSVs have now been delivered to the Army, and did the ACSV donations to Ukraine negatively impact the Army's readiness?

Around 130 last time I checked? Been a while though, so it is likely a bit higher now. We plan to start picking up on deliveries as the Electronic Warfare and Command Post variants come into service. Those should be done by mid-2027. After that, we have the Fitter Cargo Vehicle, MRT, and Engineer variants left to do.

Donations to Ukraine have not seriously affected timelines nor readiness. There was a slight rescope when first delivered, obviously, but it is no longer a concern as we ramp up deliveries. Neither is the LAV we donated, as those are coming from the failed LRSS project, which was done either way.

Basically, deliveries are starting to go good, Ukraine hasn't seriously damaged anything, and we're now looking at the next phases of our armoured vehicle procurement.

 

https://www.truenorthstrategicreview.ca/p/lets-talk-with-noah-052226-cdc-cuas

Edited May 23 by BeaverFever

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

That doesn't mean that they or the us forgives canada for being so far behind all these years and doesn't expect them to spend money FIRST on military improvements. 

All the NATO countries were behind all these years, not just Canada so yes they with the exception of USA they all “forgive” Canada and they’re all falling over themselves for Carney rolling out the red carpet for him and lining up to come here to visit to land some juicy defence contracts. Especially Germany Norway Sweden and South Korea. And ALL the NATO countries are also making major donations to Ukraine.. 

 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Like i said it's been a year and what have we actually bought?

Lots. I have been posting them here as they’ve been announced. When you stab your brain with chopsticks to delete inconvenient facts do you go through your nose or ears?

 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Like i said it's been a year and what have we actually bought? Our guys hare having to turn in their backpacks because there's not enough to go around. Do we really need to spend 5 years buying backpacks? We can't do that faster?  Carney hired his banker buddies at a million a year plus benefits just to make sure procurement was faster than ever before. 

It’s not 5 years but we’re ramping up activity and at the same time placing large orders. You know it’s not like shopping on Amazon where there’s a warehouse full of merch and it just takes a couple clicks of a mouse it it’s delivered in 48hrs. Large quantities are made to order and have to be ordered a long time in advance, the companies don’t just have workers standing around in an idle factory waiting for the phone to ring they are busy fulfilling their existing order book for other clients. So it takes what it takes. 

Also FYI procurements for things like backpacks don’t go through the new DIA agency 

Also double FYI the shortage of personal equipment is also because the army is currently phasing out ild stock and phasing in new kit under the DICE program under a contract awarded in March last year (thanks Justin!) and will start delivery this fall  

Contract awarded for modernized equipment for the Canadian Army’s light forces

On March 18, 2025, Canada awarded a contract with an initial value of $19.7 million(excluding taxes) to Logistik Unicorp to supply the Canadian Army’s (CA) light forces with 3,000 units of advanced protective and load carriage equipment. This contract includes the provision of ballistic armour layers, tactical vests, pack systems and associated pouches, as well as options for additional systems and services.

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/maple-leaf/defence/2025/05/contract-awarded-for-modernized-equipment-for-canadian-army-light-forces.html

More info:

Canadian Army’s New Advanced Protective and Load Carriage Equipment from Logistik Unicorp

https://soldiersystems.net/2025/06/03/canadian-armys-new-advanced-protective-and-load-carriage-equipment-from-logistik-unicorp/

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

They are delaying the Gordie Howe Bridge because a competing bridge paid trump a lot of money. Fentanyl and calling our PM governor is about trade deals. But this does appear to be about military spending. They're pushing Carney to make decisions about fighter planes and actually buy submarines and other equipment so the candidates preparedness is actually a real thing.

This is all about the same thing which is trying to browbeat Canada into trade concessions Yes there is a legitimate complaint about Canadas historical lack of military investment but escalating it now AFTER progress is finally being made doesn’t make sense amd the fact that the MAGA troll linked Carney’s Davos speech in his tweet shows this is ideological. 
 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

mericans and the world are looking at Carney's so-called military spending and coming to the conclusion that it's not very military.

On the contrary the Europeans, Koreans and others are beating down our door and rolling out the red carpet for us because of all this spending. We were the only non-European country invited to join SAFE and we have been selected as the host country for the Defence and Security Resilience Bank. We are one of the hottest tickets in town because of our defence spending increase 

 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Our military is not actually substantially better off to Dave than it was a year ago after he got elected. Despite him swearing that procurement would happen faster than any time in Canadian history

You just don’t understand how long procurement takes. Expediting a 10 year project into a 2-year project is procuring faster   But there’s no such thing as procuring new military hardware and taking delivery within 1 year.  The sub contract which is the one of the biggest procurement in our history will be awarded this fall or even summer  That speed for that size of project is unheard of  

 

A lot is happening Recruitment is at record highs, there was the largest pay raise in nearly 30 years, bases are being fully renovated new buildings and hangars and housing is being constructed, new satellites and space systems have been commissioned , New aircraft have been purchased, The army has been completely restructured, I have said this all before and you just continue to pretend not to see it.  

Edit:  oh and HIMARS. We quietly bought 26 US HIMARS system last years apparently for $2.5 billion. Contract signed and everything. Just no public announcement because of optics in the current trade war. It had been in the works for a while. Sadly this is one of those capabilities where there really is no equivalent alternative to the US system   Maybe some day. 

Edited May 23 by BeaverFever

[CdnFox]

57 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

@CdnFox

Oh and looky Canada’s top public defence analysts has to say on his blog, confirming everything I said  

 

 

Don't know this guy from a hole in the wall.  Sorry not a credible source and he's not citing anything i can look up. 

Bottom line is we gave away gear we needed and we havent' replaced it yet. That i CAN verify. 

16 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

All the NATO countries were behind all these years,

Not like us, we were far worse and we're the ones the us cares about. 

16 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Lots. I have been posting them here as they’ve been announced.

Announcing is not buying.  What do we actually have. Nothing?   

17 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

It’s not 5 years but we’re ramping up activity

But haven't bought anything, 

19 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Canadian Army’s New Advanced Protective and Load Carriage Equipment from Logistik Unicorp

That was over a year ago and we still don't have any. They are now requiring soldiers who aren't currently deployed to return their gear because there's a shortage. So maybe we didn't actually wind up buying it in the end? We sure don't have them now even though it was supposedly a year ago

20 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

This is all about the same thing which is trying to browbeat Canada into trade concessions

No it isn't and you've already seen that you're political knowledge is far below average. The bridge is absolutely an issue with a competing bridge in the area having paid trump tons of money to sour the deal for example and that's been widely reported.

You simply don't know what you're talking about

21 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

On the contrary the Europeans, Koreans and others are beating down our door and rolling out the red carpet for us because of all this spending.

You mean they'll say they'll take our money if we offer it. That's nice but we haven't actually paid anybody anything or signed any deals of any substance. Or have we ordered submarines and aircraft that I don't know about?

21 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

You just don’t understand how long procurement takes.

I understand just fine. And I understand carney hired a whole bunch of people to make sure it happened faster than ever in our history and yet it isn't.

And the Americans aren't stupid and they look at the situation and they realize carney is playing games. We're not actually spending any more than we usually do on military stuff we're just adding a bunch of stuff that you didn't used to be military into the equation and pretending that our spending went up

It's all fake dude. It's like when they gave a raise to the military and then cut back on the deployment benefits so that it wasn't really much of a raise at all and for many actually a pay cut

Ourselves with announcements we'd be the toughest country in the world right now but as it is we haven't actually improved our military preparedness at all

[User]

I figured @BeaverFever would hide like the coward he is after my last post... 

[I am Groot]

On 4/7/2026 at 1:36 PM, BeaverFever said:

2)Note that we also hit NATO’s 20% target on actual capability spending 

This is not about numbers. Numbers are supposed to be just an indication of effort made. Canada hasn't made an effort in generations. Spending a billion dollars each for what is basically an unarmed coastal fishing patrol boat (which the Norwegians or Koreans could build for a tenth that) does not impress anyone. We still have a military with antiquated planes, no armed helicopters, no drones, no modern warships, no tanks to speak of, a deep shortage of armored vehicles, artillery from WW2 era with no ammunition, not enough trucks, not enough radios, no ability to deter or even spot drones, no antiaircraft missiles, no antiarmor missiles (except that group in Latvia, if the systems are finally arrived and working) and vastly more fat assed bureacrats than trigger pullers. The Toronto Police Service has more people with weapons than the military. 

And just last week they put out an urgent call for bureaucrats to hand in their rucksacks and flak vests because there aren't enough for the few actual soldiers we have.

Guys like you are popping your buttons with pride that we spent 2% on defense but most people can see it's all for show.

"Hey, let's spend a billion dollars paving a road to nowhere and call it 'defense'. We can overcharge by 70% and split the profits with our friends!"